Objective: To perform a thorough assessment of the recently published Mint Trials in order to illustrate how to read and analyze a study critically, according to principles of evidence-based medicine.
Design: Narrative review.
Method: We have applied the recently published guidelines for composing and assessing studies on the treatment of pain to a recently published article describing a large study that claimed its "findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain." These guidelines describe the critical components of a high-quality manuscript that allows communication of all relevant information from authors to readers.
Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles to the publication describing the Mint Trials reveals significant issues with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the authors. A thorough assessment demonstrates issues with inclusion/exclusion criteria, diagnostic block protocols, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis, study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up. A failure to definitively establish a diagnosis, combined with use of an inadequate technique for radiofrequency neurotomy and numerous other methodological flaws, leaves the reader unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the study data.
Conclusions: Critical analysis, rooted in principles of evidence-based medicine, must be employed by writers and readers alike in order to encourage transparency and ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn from study data.