"Our Recommendations
1. Balanced Authorship: Future systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guideline development should involve balanced panels with participants from different training backgrounds and specialties, including both methodological experts and clinicians experienced in performing interventional procedures who bring important clinical context to the efforts.
2. Enhanced Study Design and Execution: Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should:
● Ensure appropriate grouping of studies by patient population, spinal region, diagnosis, procedure type, and technique.
● Ensure the intervention meets current technical standards.
3. Broader Evidence Inclusion When RCT Data are Lacking: Clinical guideline development must recognize the limitations of the supporting systematic review and incorporate well-designed prospective studies when RCT data are lacking.
4. Policy Implications: Policies regarding coverage and access to interventional pain procedures must consider the nuanced evidence supporting their use. Denial of these procedures based on inaccurate interpretations of existing data will drive patients toward more invasive, more expensive, and riskier treatments and remove options known to be safe and effective.
5. The BMJ Clinical Practice Guideline Retraction: Given the methodological issues discussed above and concerns regarding policy implications, we urge The BMJ to retract the flawed guideline publication."