Due Diligence in the Spotlight: AAPM Responds to the BMJ Meta-Analysis at PainConnect 2026

At the heart of evidence-based pain care lies a fundamental question: What does it truly mean to “do our due diligence” when reviewing the literature? On Saturday, March 7, 2026, from 4:00–5:00 PM, PainConnect attendees will witness a high-stakes, high-substance conversation that takes this question head-on.

Titled “The BMJ and the Response by AAPM: Due Diligence and How to Review the Literature,” this panel brings together key players in the ongoing scholarly exchange sparked by the 2025 BMJ network meta-analysis of interventional spine procedures. Moderated by Sudheer Potru, DO, FASA, FASAM, the discussion features two of the paper’s original authors, Jason Busse, DC, PhD, and Jason Friedrich, MD, alongside leading AAPM pain experts Steven Cohen, MD, Lynn Kohan, MD, and Nathaniel Schuster, MD.

This isn’t just academic sparring. It’s a vital conversation about research integrity, patient access, and the future of interventional pain medicine.

What’s at Stake: Interventional Spine Procedures, Patient Access, and the BMJ Meta-Analysis

The original BMJ network meta-analysis (NMA) made sweeping claims about the limited effectiveness of spine interventions—a conclusion that raised immediate red flags for pain specialists across the country. In response, AAPM published a detailed commentary in Pain Medicine that challenged the methodology, assumptions, and generalizability of the analysis. The concerns? Inclusion of low-quality studies, exclusion of rigorous ones, and oversimplified treatment groupings that risk eroding patient access to procedures that many clinicians and patients know can be life-changing.

Dr. Schuster, first author of the AAPM response, put it plainly in a recent Pain Matters podcast: “If we don’t call out methodological oversights, we risk allowing flawed conclusions to shape policy and reimbursement in ways that harm our patients.” You can also read the reply to “Notable concerns in methodology and conclusions of the Want et al. Meta-analysis in BMJ by the American Academy of Pain Medicine” HERE.

Core Questions: When the BMJ Meta-Analysis Drives Policy—How Do We Vet the Evidence?

During the session, the panel will explore crucial themes:

Transitivity in Network Meta-Analysis: How reliable are conclusions when data pools include diverse techniques (e.g., pulsed vs. conventional RF), spinal regions, and joint types? Does the NMA adequately respect the assumption of transitivity—or does it stretch it too far.
Clinical Expertise in Research Review: The panel will challenge the absence of interventional pain specialists in the review process. Are we missing critical context when procedures are assessed without input from those who perform them?
Patient-Centered Outcomes: For patients suffering from chronic pain, even 2–3 months of meaningful relief can restore quality of life. Are meta-analyses undervaluing these short-term but deeply impactful benefits?
Nociplastic Pain & Misclassification: As understanding of pain mechanisms evolves, especially around nociplastic pain, how should research adapt? Could misidentifying patient phenotypes be distorting outcome data and “diluting” treatment effects?
Lessons for the Future: Meta-analyses shape payer decisions and clinical guidelines. How can we ensure future syntheses reflect both statistical rigor and real-world complexity?

Why It Matters: How Network Meta-Analyses Shape Pain Management Policy and Access

This panel arrives at a pivotal moment in pain medicine. As the specialty seeks legitimacy amid reimbursement cuts and public skepticism, the way we interpret and defend the evidence base is more important than ever. For clinicians on the front lines, it’s not just about statistics. It’s about defending procedures that help patients reclaim their lives.

Attendees can expect a spirited, evidence-packed hour that moves beyond academic disagreement into the realm of real-world consequence. And with the session following the high-energy Innovation Challenge, the intellectual momentum will be palpable.

Don’t Miss It

Whether you’re a pain physician, an APP in interventional care, or a trainee navigating evidence-based practice, this panel is essential. It’s your opportunity to learn, challenge, and be part of the conversation shaping the future of interventional spine care.

Listen to the AAPM Pain Matters podcast episode 34, “In Response: BMJ Interventional Spine Guidelines 2025” to prepare for this dynamic panel session.

📅 Session: The BMJ and the Response by AAPM: Due Diligence and How to Review the Literature

🕓 Time: Saturday, March 7, 2026, 4:00–5:00 PM

📍 Location: Grand Ballroom BC, PainConnect 2026

👉 Come ready to listen. Come ready to question. Come ready to lead.