-
Pain Physician Mar 2021Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear.
BACKGROUND
Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain.
METHODS
Data sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS
Evidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Peripheral Nerves; Reproducibility of Results; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 33740342
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Pain Nov 2022This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability.
This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with psychological treatment, on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low-back-pain. Databases were searched up to January 31, 2022 to retrieve respective randomized controlled trials of individualized and/or personalized and/or stratified exercise interventions with or without psychological treatment compared to any control. Fifty-eight studies (n = 10084) were included. At short-term follow-up (12 weeks), low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.28 [95%CI -0.42 to -0.14]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualized versus active exercises, and very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.40; [-0.58 to -0.22])), but not (low-certainty evidence) for disability (-0.18; [-0.22 to 0.01]) compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up (1 year), moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.22 to -0.07]) and disability (-0.20 [-0.30 to -0.10]) indicates effects versus passive controls. Sensitivity analyses indicates that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Pain reduction caused by individualized exercise treatments in combination with psychological interventions (in particular behavioral-cognitive therapies) (-0.28 [-0.42 to -0.14], low certainty) is of clinical importance. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Individualized exercise can treat pain and disability in chronic non-specific low-back-pain. The effects at short term are of clinical importance (relative differences versus active 38% and versus passive interventions 77%), especially in regard to the little extra effort to individualize exercise. Sub-group analysis suggests a combination of individualized exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) with behavioral therapy interventions to booster effects. PERSPECTIVE: The relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance. Still, sustainability of effects (> 12 months) is doubtable. As individualization in exercise therapies is easy to implement, its use should be considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021247331.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Psychosocial Intervention; Exercise Therapy; Disabled Persons; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 35914641
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.07.005 -
JAMA Pediatrics Dec 2019Because children in a preverbal stage of development are unable to voice their feelings, they completely depend on their caregiving team for the interpretation and...
IMPORTANCE
Because children in a preverbal stage of development are unable to voice their feelings, they completely depend on their caregiving team for the interpretation and management of their pain and discomfort. Thus, accurately validated scales to assess pain and sedation levels are crucial.
OBJECTIVE
To provide clinicians a complete overview on the validity and reliability of the existing pain and sedation scales for different target populations (preterm infants, term infants, and toddlers) and in different clinical contexts.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
BIOSIS Previews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycCRITIQUES, PsycINFO, PSYNDEXplus Literature and Audiovisual Media, and PSYNDEXplus Tests were the databases screened from their inception to August 2018. All studies examining the validity or reliability of a given pain or sedation scale for patients in a preverbal stage of development were included in this systematic review. Those scales that were tested for at least construct validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability were subsequently scored using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist.
FINDINGS
In total, 89 validation articles comprising 65 scales were included. Fifty-seven scales (88%) were useful for assessing pain, 13 scales (20%) for assessing sedation, and 4 scales (6%) for assessing both conditions. Forty-two (65%) were behavioral scales, and 23 (35%) were multidimensional scales. Eleven scales (17%) were validated for infants on mechanical ventilation. Thirty-seven scales (57%) were validated for preterm infants, 24 scales (37%) for term and preterm infants, 7 scales (11%) for term-born children, 7 scales (11%) for preterm infants, term infants, and toddlers, and 17 scales (26%) for term infants and toddlers. Twenty-eight scales (43%) considered construct validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Clinicians should consider using scales that are validated for at least construct validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability, combining this information with the population of interest and the construct the scale is intended to measure.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Conscious Sedation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain
PubMed: 31609437
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3351 -
Pain Physician Sep 2017The management of chronic pain is a complex challenge worldwide. Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) have proven to be efficient in reducing chronic pain, although the topic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The management of chronic pain is a complex challenge worldwide. Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) have proven to be efficient in reducing chronic pain, although the topic remains highly controversial in this field.
OBJECTIVES
This study's aim is to conduct a conclusive review and meta-analysis, which incorporates all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to update clinicians' and researchers' knowledge regarding the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of CBMs for chronic and postoperative pain treatment.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using Medline/Pubmed and Google Scholar with the use of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms on all literature published up to July 2015. A follow-up manual search was conducted and included a complete cross-check of the relevant studies. The included studies were RCTs which compared the analgesic effects of CBMs to placebo. Hedges's g scores were calculated for each of the studies. A study quality assessment was performed utilizing the Jadad scale. A meta-analysis was performed utilizing random-effects models and heterogeneity between studies was statistically computed using I² statistic and tau² test.
RESULTS
The results of 43 RCTs (a total of 2,437 patients) were included in this review, of which 24 RCTs (a total of 1,334 patients) were eligible for meta-analysis. This analysis showed limited evidence showing more pain reduction in chronic pain -0.61 (-0.78 to -0.43, P < 0.0001), especially by inhalation -0.93 (-1.51 to -0.35, P = 0.001) compared to placebo. Moreover, even though this review consisted of some RCTs that showed a clinically significant improvement with a decrease of pain scores of 2 points or more, 30% or 50% or more, the majority of the studies did not show an effect. Consequently, although the primary analysis showed that the results were favorable to CBMs over placebo, the clinical significance of these findings is uncertain. The most prominent AEs were related to the central nervous and the gastrointestinal (GI) systems.
LIMITATIONS
Publication limitation could have been present due to the inclusion of English-only published studies. Additionally, the included studies were extremely heterogeneous. Only 7 studies reported on the patients' history of prior consumption of CBMs. Furthermore, since cannabinoids are surrounded by considerable controversy in the media and society, cannabinoids have marked effects, so that inadequate blinding of the placebo could constitute an important source of limitation in these types of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The current systematic review suggests that CBMs might be effective for chronic pain treatment, based on limited evidence, primarily for neuropathic pain (NP) patients. Additionally, GI AEs occurred more frequently when CBMs were administered via oral/oromucosal routes than by inhalation.Key words: Cannabis, CBMs, chronic pain, postoperative pain, review, meta-analysis.
Topics: Cannabidiol; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Dronabinol; Drug Combinations; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Neuralgia; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28934780
DOI: No ID Found -
Minerva Pediatrics Apr 2023Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper...
INTRODUCTION
Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper management of pain. Unpleasant experiences during the neonatal period are proven to be associated with negative long-term consequences. Non-pharmacological interventions have been studied, although rarely administered and seldom documented. The aim of this systematic review was to assess non-pharmacological approaches to neonatal pain during diagnostic and treatment procedures.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Extensive literature research to access randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological pain management in neonates was performed in MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science from October 2011 to September 2021. First analysis included all article titles and abstracts screening to identify relevant studies, and second analysis included a full-text screening of previously selected studies. Eligibility was assessed independently by two authors, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. In the end, 19 published studies were included, representing a total of 1930 newborns. Main outcome, neonatal pain, was assessed by different neonatal pain evaluation scales.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Non-pharmacological interventions including sucrose/glucose solutions, non-nutritive sucking, breastfeeding, olfactive stimulus, auditory stimulus and sensory stimulus (skin-to-skin care, kangaroo/maternal holding, heat, therapeutic massage, swaddling/facilitated tucking and acupressure) showed decreased behavioral and physiologic pain responses.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests non-pharmacological approaches are safe, effective and can be easily applied in daily practice. There is the need for continued research on non-pharmacological interventions on neonatal pain to help healthcare providers build a tailored pain treatment plan for neonates submitted to procedural pain.
Topics: Humans; Punctures; Pain; Pain Management; Phlebotomy; Vaccination
PubMed: 35726765
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5276.22.06871-9 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Jun 2018Study Design Literature review with meta-analysis. Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), a classification-based system, was designed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Study Design Literature review with meta-analysis. Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), a classification-based system, was designed to classify patients into homogeneous subgroups to direct treatment. Objectives To examine the effectiveness of MDT for improving pain and disability in patients with either acute (less than 12 weeks in duration) or chronic (greater than 12 weeks in duration) low back pain (LBP). Methods Randomized controlled trials examining MDT in patients with LBP were identified from 6 databases. Independent investigators assessed the studies for exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effects of MDT to those of other interventions in patients with acute or chronic LBP. Results Of the 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11 yielded valid data for analysis. In patients with acute LBP, there was no significant difference in pain resolution (P = .11) and disability (P = .61) between MDT and other interventions. In patients with chronic LBP, there was a significant difference in disability (SMD, -0.45), with results favoring MDT compared to exercise alone. There were no significant differences between MDT and manual therapy plus exercise (P>.05) for pain and disability outcomes. Conclusion There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP. In patients with chronic LBP, there is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability; however, this depends on the type of intervention being compared to MDT. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):476-490. Epub 30 Mar 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 29602304
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7562 -
PloS One 2022Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).
RESULTS
27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Patient Education as Topic; Quality of Life; Sciatica
PubMed: 36223377
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274527 -
Pain Nov 2015The Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale is one of the most widely used behavioural observation pain scales. However, the psychometrics of the scale... (Review)
Review
The Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale is one of the most widely used behavioural observation pain scales. However, the psychometrics of the scale have not been adequately summarised and evaluated to provide clear recommendations regarding its use. The aim of this study was to rigorously evaluate the reliability, validity, feasibility, and utility of the scale for clinical and research purposes and provide recommendations regarding appropriate use of the scale. Databases searched were MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO (using the Ovid, PubMed, and Ebscohost platforms), The Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews and Cochrane Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Psychometric evaluation studies reporting feasibility, reliability, validity, or utility data for the FLACC scale applied to children (birth to 18 years) and randomised controlled trials (RCT) using the FLACC scale to measure a study outcome in infants and children. Data extraction included study design, population demographics, and psychometric data. Analysis involved in this study are quality assessment of the psychometric evaluation studies and the RCTs using the COSMIN checklist and the Jadad scale, respectively, and narrative synthesis of all results. Twenty-five psychometric evaluations studies and 52 RCTs were included. The study population, circumstances, and quality of the studies varied greatly. Sufficient data addressing postoperative pain assessment in infants and children exist. Some positive data support the psychometrics of the scale used to assess postoperative pain in children with cognitive impairment. Limited and conflicting data addressing procedural pain assessment exist. Content validity and scale feasibility have had limited psychometric evaluation. There are insufficient data to support the FLACC scale for use in all circumstances and populations to which is currently applied.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Crying; Face; Humans; Infant; Leg; Pain; Pain Measurement; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 26207651
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000305 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Sep 2023We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Systematic review with meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. .
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Pain Measurement; Bias
PubMed: 37506306
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2023.11962 -
Musculoskeletal Care Mar 2022This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and delivery of Pilates to reduce pain and disability and to improve physical function and quality of life in...
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and delivery of Pilates to reduce pain and disability and to improve physical function and quality of life in middle-aged to older adults with a range of chronic musculoskeletal conditions.
METHODS
Searches were conducted using CENTRAL, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Pubmed, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were controlled trials and observational studies, population mean age 50 years and over with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, using mat-based Pilates exercise. Outcomes included pain, disability, physical function and quality of life.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included, with a combined total sample of 397 participants (73% female). Pilates was significantly effective (p ≤ 0.05) for reducing back pain, neck pain and pain associated with knee osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Additional significant disability, physical functioning and quality of life effects were found for back pain, osteoporosis, and knee OA. Overall Pilates was as effective as other exercise. Adherence to group exercise was good, but poor for home exercise. No significant adverse effects were reported.
CONCLUSION
Pilates is a safe and effective exercise intervention for adults over 50 with a diverse range of musculoskeletal conditions which may otherwise put them at risk of becoming sedentary. Although no overall significant superiority was found over other exercise, participants reported psychosocial benefits particular to the Pilates group exercise, with enjoyment a possible positive factor in adherence. Further research on Pilates exercises for various pathologies could inform teaching and improve engagement with older adults, including those with chronic conditions.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Disease; Chronic Pain; Exercise Movement Techniques; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Osteoporosis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34028164
DOI: 10.1002/msc.1563