-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Apr 2018The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use?
METHODS
A systematic review of currently published studies was performed following standard guidelines. Online database searches were performed for clinical trials published before November 2017, on the comparison of the pain scores in adults and preferences of the specific patient groups. A literature search via electronic databases was carried out for the last fifteen years on English Language papers. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, pain intensity, VAS, VRS, and NRS. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. Data were independently extracted by two blinded reviewers. Studies were also assessed for bias using the Cochrane criteria.
RESULTS
The initial data search yielded 872 potentially relevant studies; of these, 853 were excluded for some reason. The main reason for exclusion (33.7%) was that irrelevance to comparison of pain scales and scores, followed by pediatric studies (32.1%). Finally, 19 underwent full-text review, and were analysed for the study purposes. Studies were of moderate (n=12, 63%) to low (n=7, 37%) quality.
CONCLUSIONS
All three scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the VAS is more difficulties than the others. For general purposes the NRS has good sensitivity and generates data that can be analysed for audit purposes.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 29321111
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Feb 2022This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in managing different types of pain in different age groups and to provide evidence for the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in managing different types of pain in different age groups and to provide evidence for the clinical application of new alternative strategy for pain management.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science, were searched for studies published up to October 2020. Randomized controlled trials that reported on VR for pain management were included.
RESULTS
A total of 31 randomized controlled trials were included. As for the pain intensity, the increase of visual analog scale score in the VR group was 1.62 scores less than that in the control group. In juvenile patients, the VR group had 1.79 scores lower than that in control group. For adult patients, the VR group had 1.34 scores lower than that in control group. As for other pain-related indicators, the VR group had lower levels of anxiety, lower pain unpleasantness, lower pulse rate, and shorter duration of dressing change and spent less time thinking about pain. Nevertheless, there was no statistical difference in pain tolerance. VR can effectively alleviate acute pain. In terms of chronic low back pain and cancer-related pain, there was no statistical difference between VR therapy and standard therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
VR is a feasible alternative therapy for both juveniles and adults in pain management, and it has a greater potential for juveniles. VR can effectively alleviate acute pain. Nevertheless, VR showed little effectiveness in increasing pain tolerance, which may explain in part the ineffectiveness of VR therapy in pain management for chronic pain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cancer Pain; Child; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Virtual Reality; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy; Visual Analog Scale; Young Adult
PubMed: 35094802
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1285 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Apr 2021There has been increased interest in the use of low-dose ketamine (LDK) as an alternative analgesic for the management of acute pain in the emergency department (ED).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
There has been increased interest in the use of low-dose ketamine (LDK) as an alternative analgesic for the management of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this systematic review was to compare the analgesic effectiveness and safety profile of LDK and morphine for acute pain management in the ED.
METHODS
Electronic searches of Medline and EMBASE were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDK to morphine for acute pain control in the ED were included. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs were included with a total of 1,191 patients (LDK = 598, morphine = 593). There was no significant difference in reported mean pain scores between LDK and morphine within the first 60 minutes after analgesia administration and a slight difference in pain scores favoring morphine at 60 to 120 minutes. The need for rescue medication was also similar between groups (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.50 to 3.16), as was the proportion of patients who experienced nausea (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.49) and hypoxia (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.10 to 1.41). All outcomes were judged to have low certainty in the evidence.
CONCLUSION
Low-dose ketamine and morphine had similar analgesic effectiveness within 60 minutes of administration with comparable safety profiles, suggesting that LDK is an effective alternative analgesic for acute pain control in the ED.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Ketamine; Pain Management
PubMed: 33098707
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14159 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.
MAIN RESULTS
In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Massage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26329399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001929.pub3 -
Pain Feb 2021The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the...
The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32826760
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046 -
Pharmacotherapy Dec 2018This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine for the treatment of acute pain in adult patients. The PubMed database was...
This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine for the treatment of acute pain in adult patients. The PubMed database was searched for randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, case series, and case reports evaluating the use of IV lidocaine for the treatment of acute pain in adult patients, published between January 1970 and January 2018. The primary outcome was pain reduction via the Visual Analog Scale, Verbal Rating Scale, or Numeric Rating Scale among patients treated with IV lidocaine and placebo or active controls. Safety outcomes included both nonserious and serious adverse events. A total of 347 titles and abstracts were screened, and after full-text review, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 512 patients. The four active controls studied were IV morphine, IV ketorolac, IV dihydroergotamine (DHE), and IV chlorpromazine (CPZ). The dosing of IV lidocaine varied among studies between a weight-based dose of a 1- to 2-mg/kg bolus, a fixed-bolus dose of 50-100 mg, and a 1-mg/kg/hour continuous infusion. Monitoring of serum lidocaine concentrations was not done routinely. Intravenous lidocaine had superior efficacy to morphine for renal colic and critical limb ischemia, superior efficacy to DHE for acute migraine, and equivalent efficacy to ketorolac for acute radicular lower back pain. However, lidocaine was less effective than CPZ for the treatment of acute migraine. The most common adverse event reported among all studies were neurologic effects such as altered mental status and slurred speech. Due to the inconsistency in dosing, length of administration, and lack of serum monitoring, the absolute safety of IV lidocaine for acute pain is unknown. Larger, prospective studies are needed before the routine use of IV lidocaine can be recommended for all types of acute pain.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Lidocaine; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30303542
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2189 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.
RESULTS
98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019145257.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Male; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36948512
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072962 -
Pain Management Nursing : Official... Feb 2017The objective of this review was to examine the effects of nursing education interventions on clinical outcomes for acute pain management in hospital settings, relating... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review was to examine the effects of nursing education interventions on clinical outcomes for acute pain management in hospital settings, relating interventions to health care behavior change theory. Three databases were searched for nursing education interventions from 2002 to 2015 in acute hospital settings with clinical outcomes reported. Methodological quality was rated as strong, moderate, or weak using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies. The 12 eligible studies used varied didactic and interactive teaching methods. Several studies had weaknesses attributable to selection biases, uncontrolled confounders, and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. No studies made reference to behavior change theory in their design. Eight of the 12 studies investigated nursing documentation of pain assessment as the main outcome, with the majority reporting positive effects of education interventions on nursing pain assessment. Of the remaining studies, two reported mixed findings on patient self-report of pain scores as the key measure, one reported improvements in patient satisfaction with pain management after a nursing intervention, and one study found an increase in nurses' delivery of a relaxation treatment following an intervention. Improvements in design and evaluation of nursing education interventions are suggested, drawing on behavior change theory and emphasizing the relational, contextual, and emotionally demanding nature of nursing pain management in hospital settings.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Outcome Assessment; Quality of Life; Teaching
PubMed: 28038974
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2016.11.001