-
BMJ Open Feb 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study).
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or 50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain.
RESULTS
The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=-0·96 (95% CI -1·14 to -0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = -0·72 (95% CI -0·95 to -0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators.
CONCLUSION
There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019125054.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Pain Measurement; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35144946
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051073 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of preemptive analgesia on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.
METHODS
In this network meta-analysis, 19 preemptive analgesia regimens were compared. Two authors independently searched databases, selected studies, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the intensity of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included the time to first analgesia rescue and incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
In total, 188 studies were included (13 769 subjects). Ten of 19 regimens reduced postoperative pain intensity compared with placebo, with mean differences 100-point scale ranging from -4.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.61 to -0.96.) for gabapentin at 48 h to -21.99 (95% CI: -36.97 to -7.02) for lornoxicam at 6 h. Eight regimens reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo, with mean differences ranging from -0.48 mg (95% CI: -0.89 to -0.08) i.v. milligrams of morphine equivalents (IMME) for acetaminophen at 12 h to -2.27 IMME (95% CI: -3.07 to -1.46) for ibuprofen at 24 h. Five regimens delayed rescue analgesia from 1.75 (95% CI: 0.59-2.91) h for gabapentin to 7.35 (95% CI: 3.66-11.04) h for epidural analgesia. Five regimens had a lower incidence of PONV compared with placebo, ranging from an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for ibuprofen to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) for pregabalin.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of preemptive analgesia reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea or vomiting, and delays rescue analgesia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021232593.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 36404458
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.038 -
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2022Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains uncertain. We aimed to estimate the extent to which opioid prescribing after discharge affects self-reported pain intensity and adverse events in comparison with an opioid-free analgesic regimen.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, Biosis, and CINAHL from Jan 1, 1990, until July 8, 2021. We included multidose randomised controlled trials comparing opioid versus opioid-free analgesia in patients aged 15 years or older, discharged after undergoing a surgical procedure according to the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity definition (minor, moderate, major, and major complex). We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials) in duplicate. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported pain intensity on day 1 after discharge (standardised to 0-10 cm visual analogue scale) and vomiting up to 30 days. Pain intensity at further timepoints, pain interference, other adverse events, risk of dissatisfaction, and health-care reutilisation were also assessed. We did random-effects meta-analyses and appraised evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations scoring system. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42020153050).
FINDINGS
47 trials (n=6607 patients) were included. 30 (64%) trials involved elective minor procedures (63% dental procedures) and 17 (36%) trials involved procedures of moderate extent (47% orthopaedic and 29% general surgery procedures). Compared with opioid-free analgesia, opioid prescribing did not reduce pain on the first day after discharge (weighted mean difference 0·01cm, 95% CI -0·26 to 0·27; moderate certainty) or at other postoperative timepoints (moderate-to-very-low certainty). Opioid prescribing was associated with increased risk of vomiting (relative risk 4·50, 95% CI 1·93 to 10·51; high certainty) and other adverse events, including nausea, constipation, dizziness, and drowsiness (high-to-moderate certainty). Opioids did not affect other outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
Findings from this meta-analysis support that opioid prescribing at surgical discharge does not reduce pain intensity but does increase adverse events. Evidence relied on trials focused on elective surgeries of minor and moderate extent, suggesting that clinicians can consider prescribing opioid-free analgesia in these surgical settings. Data were largely derived from low-quality trials, and none involved patients having major or major-complex procedures. Given these limitations, there is a great need to advance the quality and scope of research in this field.
FUNDING
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Patient Discharge; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting; Pain, Postoperative; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 35717988
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00582-7 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Nov 2021Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations.
RESULTS
Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes.
RECOMMENDATION
PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Consensus; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Peripheral Nerves
PubMed: 34433647
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2021-102750 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Mar 2023Chest wall injury in older adults is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optimal nonsurgical management strategies for these patients have not been fully... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Non-surgical management and analgesia strategies for older adults with multiple rib fractures: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and joint practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Chest Wall Injury Society.
BACKGROUND
Chest wall injury in older adults is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optimal nonsurgical management strategies for these patients have not been fully defined regarding level of care, incentive spirometry (IS), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and the use of ketamine, epidural, and other locoregional approaches to analgesia.
METHODS
Relevant questions regarding older patients with significant chest wall injury with patient population(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and appropriate selected outcomes were chosen. These focused on intensive care unit (ICU) admission, IS, NIPPV, and analgesia including ketamine, epidural analgesia, and locoregional nerve blocks. A systematic literature search and review were conducted, our data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, and the quality of evidence was assessed per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. No funding was used.
RESULTS
Our literature review (PROSPERO 2020-CRD42020201241, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, January 15, 2020) resulted in 151 studies. Intensive care unit admission was qualitatively not superior for any defined cohort other than by clinical assessment. Poor IS performance was associated with prolonged hospital length of stay, pulmonary complications, and unplanned ICU admission. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was associated with 85% reduction in odds of pneumonia ( p < 0.0001) and 81% reduction in odds of mortality ( p = 0.03) in suitable patients without risk of airway loss. Ketamine use demonstrated no significant reduction in pain score but a trend toward reduced opioid use. Epidural and other locoregional analgesia techniques did not affect pneumonia, length of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or mortality.
CONCLUSION
We do not recommend for or against routine ICU admission. We recommend use of IS to inform ICU status and conditionally recommend use of NIPPV in patients without risk of airway loss. We offer no recommendation for or against ketamine, epidural, or other locoregional analgesia.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Rib Fractures; Ketamine; Pain; Analgesia, Epidural; Thoracic Injuries; Pneumonia; Neck Injuries; Length of Stay
PubMed: 36730672
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003830 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 2021As a traditional Chinese alternative health care approach, acupuncture is gaining increasing attention and reputation in China and overseas. While becoming increasingly...
As a traditional Chinese alternative health care approach, acupuncture is gaining increasing attention and reputation in China and overseas. While becoming increasingly popular globally, some consumers and professionals still know little about the therapy and underlying mechanisms of acupuncture. Due to local superiority, there are large numbers of both clinical applications and mechanistic studies performed in China compared to countries overseas. Herein, this review attempts to give a comprehensive profile of the development, application, and mechanisms of acupuncture in treating major diseases. The number of clinical publications concerning acupuncture-treated neurological diseases, endocrine and metabolic diseases, circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, etc. is first counted, and then, the application and therapeutic mechanisms of acupuncture on the predominant diseases in each category, including obesity, facial paralysis, sciatica, depression, hypertension, asthma, etc., are specifically discussed in this paper. The evolution of acupuncture tools and the rationality of acupoints are also discussed. This review not only summarizes the mechanisms of acupuncture but also provides useful information, such as specific acupoints and acupuncture procedures, for treating common diseases. Therefore, the current study provides useful information for both investigators and acupuncturists.
Topics: Acupuncture Points; Acupuncture Therapy; Cardiovascular Diseases; Electroacupuncture; Endocrine System Diseases; Humans; Mental Disorders; Metabolic Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Skin Diseases; Urologic Diseases
PubMed: 33371816
DOI: 10.1142/S0192415X21500014 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports May 2023Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and often painful condition that occurs after administration of chemotherapeutic agents. The primary... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and often painful condition that occurs after administration of chemotherapeutic agents. The primary objective of this systematic review was to appraise the literature on conservative, pharmacological, and interventional treatment options for CIPN pain.
RECENT FINDINGS
There is level I evidence supporting modest to moderate improvement in CIPN pain from duloxetine treatment, as well as short-term modest improvement from physical therapy and acupuncture. Although opioid and cannabis administration may provide short-term modest improvement, administration is commonly limited by side effects. Generally, most studies reported no clinical benefit from yoga, topical neuropathic agents, gabapentinoids, and tricyclic antidepressants. Evidence is currently equivocal for scrambler therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Finally, evidence on neuromodulation options is limited to mostly case reports/series and one observational study highlighting moderate improvement with auricular nerve stimulation. This systematic review provides an overview of conservative, pharmacologic, and interventional treatment modalities for CIPN pain. Furthermore, it provides a level of evidence and degree of recommendation based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for each specific treatment modality.
Topics: Humans; Neuralgia; Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents; Pain Management; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37058254
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01107-4 -
Medicina Intensiva Apr 2020Given the importance of the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium in Intensive Care Units, and in order to update the previously published guidelines, a new...
Given the importance of the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium in Intensive Care Units, and in order to update the previously published guidelines, a new clinical practice guide is presented, addressing the most relevant management and intervention aspects based on the recent literature. A group of 24 intensivists from 9 countries of the Pan-American and Iberian Federation of Societies of Critical Medicine and Intensive Therapy met to develop the guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations was made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the database of Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS). A total of 438 references were selected. After consensus, 47 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality evidence, 14 conditional recommendations with moderate quality evidence, and 65 conditional recommendations with low quality evidence were established. Finally, the importance of initial and multimodal pain management was underscored. Emphasis was placed on decreasing sedation levels and the use of deep sedation only in specific cases. The evidence and recommendations for the use of drugs such as dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine and others were incremented.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia; Benzodiazepines; Conscious Sedation; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Delirium; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Midazolam; Pain Management
PubMed: 31492476
DOI: 10.1016/j.medin.2019.07.013 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2020To identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINHAL, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to December 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating short term, protocolised medical interventions conducted before, during, or after non-cardiac surgery were included. Trials with clinical diagnostic criteria for PPC outcomes were included. Studies of surgical technique or physiological or biochemical outcomes were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methods. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary outcomes were respiratory infection, atelectasis, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate the reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence. Adverse effects of interventions were not measured or compared.
RESULTS
117 trials enrolled 21 940 participants, investigating 11 categories of intervention. 95 randomised controlled trials enrolling 18 062 participants were included in meta-analysis; 22 trials were excluded from meta-analysis because the interventions were not sufficiently similar to be pooled. No high quality evidence was found for interventions to reduce the primary outcome (incidence of PPCs). Seven interventions had low or moderate quality evidence with confidence intervals indicating a probable reduction in PPCs: enhanced recovery pathways (risk ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.58), prophylactic mucolytics (0.40, 0.23 to 0.67), postoperative continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (0.49, 0.24 to 0.99), lung protective intraoperative ventilation (0.52, 0.30 to 0.88), prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy (0.55, 0.32 to 0.93), epidural analgesia (0.77, 0.65 to 0.92), and goal directed haemodynamic therapy (0.87, 0.77 to 0.98). Moderate quality evidence showed no benefit for incentive spirometry in preventing PPCs. Trial sequential analysis adjustment confidently supported a relative risk reduction of 25% in PPCs for prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy, epidural analgesia, enhanced recovery pathways, and goal directed haemodynamic therapies. Insufficient data were available to support or refute equivalent relative risk reductions for other interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Predominantly low quality evidence favours multiple perioperative PPC reduction strategies. Clinicians may choose to reassess their perioperative care pathways, but the results indicate that new trials with a low risk of bias are needed to obtain conclusive evidence of efficacy for many of these interventions.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Prospero CRD42016035662.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Critical Pathways; Expectorants; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamics; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Physical Therapy Modalities; Postoperative Complications; Respiratory Therapy; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 32161042
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m540