Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Correspondence
36 (
1
); 67-68
doi:
10.25259/NMJI_735_22

Narrative approaches to reviews

Department of Physiotherapy, Composite Regional Centre for Skill Development, Rehabilitation, and Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Mohaan Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

[To cite: Shankar Ganesh G. Narrative approaches to reviews [Correspondence]. Natl Med J India 2023;36:67–8. DOI: 10.25259/NMJI_735_22]

Garg et al. have used a narrative review to summarize the effect of non-operative therapies in the management of low back pain.1 The results of the review have to be approached with caution for the following reasons. Narrative reviews or literature reviews are criticized for being neither systematic nor transparent in their approach to the synthesis of the literature.2 Although the authors claim to have conducted a literature review, the search terms, databases and duration of the literature research have not been reported. The review must make sure that all or the majority of the pertinent research on the subject has been identified and included after clearly outlining its objectives. Along with parameters linked to variability, such as critical analysis of the articles included in the initial reviews, the quality and consistency of the evidence must be addressed.3

The next major drawback is that the authors have not defined the clinical question for which the review was done, which is a prerequisite for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).4 The outcomes and comparator agents have not been specifically reported for many of the reviewed interventions. It is also not clear how the authors graded the quality of evidence using GRADE as the effect size for each outcome in absolute terms was not provided.5 Though this may be partially explained in terms of diverse characteristics of the studies considered, the authors could have considered alternative synthesis of results such as summary statistics of intervention effect estimates, vote counting based on direction of effect, and combining p values, and could have presented the results as a synthesis without meta-analysis.6

The results of some of the studied interventions have not been stated clearly. For example, the section on education does not specifically mention the outcomes and the comparator agent that were considered to determine if patient education was successful. Further, certain recommendations are based on old references (e.g. section on exercises). A recent meta-analysis has concluded that pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations.7 The results of a network meta-analysis had concluded that the pilates, resistance and stabilization/motor control, and resistance and aerobic exercises are effective against true control only for pain, physical function and mental health, respectively.8 It may therefore be ensured that reviews adhere to preferred reporting items that help in the decision-making process.

Conflicts of interest

None declared

References

  1. , , . Non-operative treatment in low back pain: A review of current evidence and treatment recommendations. Natl Med J India. 2022;35:19-27.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: Final report Swindon: ESRC Methods Programme; .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . On the attributes of a critical literature review. Coaching. 2011;4:156-62.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. GRADE guidelines: 2 Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395-400.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , et al. GRADE guidelines: Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383-94.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods In: , , , , , , eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; . p. :321-48.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , et al. Some types of exercise are more effective than others in people with chronic low back pain: A network meta-analysis. J Physiother. 2021;67:252-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , et al. Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1279-87.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
902

PDF downloads
410
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections