-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2018Significant pain can be experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This systematic review aims to formulate PROSPECT (PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain...
BACKGROUND
Significant pain can be experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This systematic review aims to formulate PROSPECT (PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT) recommendations to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials published in the English language from January 2006 (date of last PROSPECT review) to December 2017, assessing analgesic, anaesthetic, or operative interventions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults, and reporting pain scores, were retrieved from MEDLINE and Cochrane databases using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) search protocols. PROSPECT methodology was used, and recommendations were formulated after review and discussion by the PROSPECT group (an international group of leading pain specialists and surgeons).
RESULTS
Of 1988 randomised controlled trials identified, 258 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The studies were of mixed methodological quality, and quantitative analysis was not performed because of heterogeneous study design and how outcomes were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend basic analgesic techniques: paracetamol + NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor + surgical site local anaesthetic infiltration. Paracetamol and NSAID should be started before or during operation with dexamethasone (GRADE A). Opioid should be reserved for rescue analgesia only (GRADE B). Gabapentanoids, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic, and transversus abdominis plane blocks are not recommended (GRADE D) unless basic analgesia is not possible. Surgically, we recommend low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, postprocedure saline lavage, and aspiration of pneumoperitoneum (GRADE A). Single-port incision techniques are not recommended to reduce pain (GRADE A).
Topics: Analgesics; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30236241
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.023 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infections; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Stage, First; Labor Stage, Second; Natural Childbirth; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Water
PubMed: 29768662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4 -
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 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
Scientific Reports Dec 2022Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) has been investigated as a novel neuromodulation tool. Although taVNS is generally considered safe with only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) has been investigated as a novel neuromodulation tool. Although taVNS is generally considered safe with only mild and transient adverse effects (AEs), those specifically caused by taVNS have not yet been investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis on taVNS aimed to (1) systematically analyze study characteristics and AE assessment, (2) characterize and analyze possible AEs and their incidence, (3) search for predictable risk factors, (4) analyze the severity of AE, and (5) suggest an evidence-based taVNS adverse events questionnaire for safety monitoring. The articles searched were published through April 7, 2022, in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. In general, we evaluated 177 studies that assessed 6322 subjects. From these, 55.37% of studies did not mention the presence or absence of any AEs; only 24.86% of the studies described that at least one adverse event occurred. In the 35 studies reporting the number of subjects with at least one adverse event, a meta-analytic approach to calculate the risk differences of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls was used. The meta-analytic overall adverse events incidence rate was calculated for the total number of adverse events reported on a 100,000 person-minutes-days scale. There were no differences in risk of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls. The incidence of AE, in general, was 12.84/100,000 person-minutes-days of stimulation, and the most frequently reported were ear pain, headache, and tingling. Almost half of the studies did not report the presence or absence of any AEs. We attribute this to the absence of AE in those studies. There was no causal relationship between taVNS and severe adverse events. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of transcutaneous auricular stimulation safety. Overall, taVNS is a safe and feasible option for clinical intervention.
Topics: Humans; Vagus Nerve Stimulation; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Vagus Nerve; Pain Management; Headache
PubMed: 36543841
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25864-1 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Sep 2023Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is used for treating depression but the efficacy and safety have not been well assessed. This study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is used for treating depression but the efficacy and safety have not been well assessed. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of taVNS in depression.
METHODS
The retrieval databases included English databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO, and Chinese databases of CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and Sino Med, and the retrieval period was from their inception to November 10, 2022. The clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) were also searched. Standardized mean difference and the risk ratio were used as the effect indicator and the effect size was represented by the 95 % confidence interval. Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence respectively.
RESULTS
Totally, 12 studies of 838 participants were included. taVNS could significantly improve depression and reduce Hamilton Depression Scale scores. Low to very low evidence showed that taVNS had higher response rates than sham-taVMS and comparable response rates compared to antidepressants (ATD) and that taVNS combined with ATD had comparable efficacy to ATD with fewer side effects.
LIMITATIONS
The number of studies in subgroups was small and the evidence quality was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
taVNS is an effective and safe method for alleviating depression scores and had a comparable response rate to ATD.
Topics: Humans; Vagus Nerve Stimulation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Antidepressive Agents; Vagus Nerve; Depressive Disorder
PubMed: 37230264
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.05.048 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Neuralgia; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 28905362
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011976.pub2 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Feb 2015To investigate the efficacy of different electrical stimulation (ES) therapies in pain relief of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy of different electrical stimulation (ES) therapies in pain relief of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).
METHOD
Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any ES therapies with control interventions (sham or blank) or with each other. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine both the direct and indirect evidence on treatment effectiveness.
RESULTS
27 trials and six kinds of ES therapies, including high-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (h-TENS), low-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (l-TENS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), interferential current (IFC), pulsed electrical stimulation (PES), and noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (NIN), were included. IFC is the only significantly effective treatment in terms of both pain intensity and change pain score at last follow-up time point when compared with the control group. Meanwhile, IFC showed the greatest probability of being the best option among the six treatment methods in pain relief. These estimates barely changed in sensitivity analysis. However, the evidence of heterogeneity and the limitation in sample size of some studies could be a potential threat to the validity of results.
CONCLUSION
IFC seems to be the most promising pain relief treatment for the management of knee OA. However, evidence was limited due to the heterogeneity and small number of included trials. Although the recommendation level of the other ES therapies is either uncertain (h-TENS) or not appropriate (l-TENS, NMES, PES and NIN) for pain relief, it is likely that none of the interventions is dangerous.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
LevelⅡ, systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Arthralgia; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25497083
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Hypnosis; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Length of Stay; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27192949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2022This Bayesian network meta-analysis investigated the available randomized control trials (RCTs) to point out which acupuncture protocol is the most effective for chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This Bayesian network meta-analysis investigated the available randomized control trials (RCTs) to point out which acupuncture protocol is the most effective for chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP). Efficacy was measured in terms of pain (Visual Analogic Scale, VAS) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMQ), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS).
METHODS
PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, and Scopus were accessed in March 2022. All the RCTs comparing two or more acupuncture modalities for aspecific chronic LBP were accessed. Only studies which investigated the efficacy of acupuncture on patients with symptoms lasting a minimum of 1.5 months, or with at least three episodes in the previous 12 months, were considered eligible. The Review Manager Software (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for the methodological quality assessment. The STATA Software/MP, Version 14.1 (StataCorporation, College Station, Texas, USA), was used for the statistical analyses. The NMA was performed through the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis.
RESULTS
Data from 44 RCTs (8338 procedures) were retrieved. 56% of patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 48 ± 10.6 years. The mean BMI was 26.3 ± 2.2 kg/m. The individual group (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02, 7.98) and the standard combined with TENS (95% CI 2.03, 7.97) demonstrated the highest improvement of the RMQ. The VAS score was lower in the standard combined with TENS group (95% CI 3.28, 4.56). Considering the standard acupuncture group, different studies used similar protocols and acupuncture points and the results could thus be compared. The equation for global linearity did not find any statistically significant inconsistency in any of the network comparison.
CONCLUSION
Verum acupuncture is more effective than sham treatment for the non-pharmacological management of LBP. Among the verum protocols, individualized acupuncture and standard acupuncture with TENS were the protocols that resulted in the highest improvement in pain and quality of life.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35725480
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03212-3