4.6 Review

Exclusion of Older Adults from Ongoing Clinical Trials on Low Back Pain: A Review of the WHO Trial Registry Database

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 603-608

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.15684

Keywords

ageism; low back pain; clinical trial; therapeutics; qualitative research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/ObjectivesThe burden of low back pain (LBP) is high, especially for older adults who experience a higher number of years living with a disability. However, this population is not being well represented in clinical trials (CTs). This study analyzed the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) database from the World Health Organization to verify the future trend in the participation of older adults in registered CTs on LBP. DesignWe performed a cross-sectional review of the ICTRP searching for prospective protocols planning interventions for LBP with registration dates from January 2015 through November 2018. From the protocols of the eligible studies, we extracted those planning to include older adults. ResultsA total of 167 protocols for CTs for LBP were planning to recruit participants older than 65 years. However, only five registries (2.99%; pooled sample = 169 participants) were designed to target participants specifically older than 65 years. The exclusion of older participants was not justified and imposed through an arbitrary upper-age limit in 93.6% of the protocols. Most of the protocols are from single-center studies, and a greater number are planned to be carried out in developed regions. Higher interest was in pharmacologic interventions, devices/technology, and physical rehabilitation. ConclusionOlder adults with LBP will continue to be underinvestigated in CTs for LBP in the near future. In general, ongoing trials are small, planned in developed regions, and proposing pharmacologic interventions to deal with LBP. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:603-608, 2019.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available