-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Orthopedic; Massage; Neck; Neck Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Thorax; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 26397370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004249.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and lost work productivity. For the vast majority of people with LBP, no specific anatomical cause can be reliably identified. For these people with non-specific LBP there are numerous treatment options, few of which have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and disability. The muscle energy technique (MET) is a treatment technique used predominantly by osteopaths, physiotherapists and chiropractors which involves alternating periods of resisted muscle contractions and assisted stretching. To date it is unclear whether MET is effective in reducing pain and improving function in people with LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of MET in the treatment of people with non-specific LBP compared with control interventions, with particular emphasis on subjective pain and disability outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers were searched from inception to May and June 2014 together with reference checking and citation searching of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of MET on pain or disability in patients with non-specific LBP were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed where clinical homogeneity was sufficient. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed with the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 12 randomised controlled trials with 14 comparisons included in the review, with a total sample of 500 participants across all comparisons. Included studies were typically very small (n = 20 to 72), all except one were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and all reported short-term outcomes. For the purposes of pooling, studies were divided into seven clinically homogenous comparisons according to the patient population (acute or chronic LBP) and the nature of the control intervention. Most of the comparisons (five out of seven) included only one study, one comparison had two studies, and one comparison included seven studies.The meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that MET provided no additional benefit when added to other therapies on the outcomes of chronic pain and disability in the short-term (weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain 0.00, 95% CI -2.97 to 2.98 on a 100-point scale; standardised mean difference (SMD) for disability -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.08, 7 studies, 232 participants). There was low-quality evidence that MET produced no clinically relevant differences in pain compared to sham MET (mean difference (MD) 14.20, 95% CI -10.14 to 38.54, 1 study, 20 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for acute non-specific LBP, there was very low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -10.72, 95% CI -32.57 to 11.13, 2 studies, 88 participants) and functional status (MD 0.87, 95% CI -6.31 to 8.05, 1 study, 60 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -9.70, 95% CI -20.20 to 0.80, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -4.10, 95% CI -9.53 to 1.33, 1 study, 30 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the addition of MET to other interventions for acute non-specific LBP for the outcome of pain (MD -3, 95% CI -11.37 to 5.37, 1 study, 40 participants) and low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for functional status (MD -17.6, 95% CI -27.05 to -8.15, 1 study, 40 participants). For chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for the addition of MET to other interventions for the outcomes of pain (MD -34.1, 95% CI -38.43 to -29.77, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -22, 95% CI -27.41 to -16.59, 1 study, 30 participants). Lastly, there was low-quality evidence of no difference for the addition of MET to another manual intervention compared to the same intervention with other conservative therapies for the outcomes of pain (MD 5.20, 95% CI -3.03 to 13.43, 1 study, 20 participants) and functional status (MD 6.0, 95% CI -0.49 to 12.49, 1 study, 20 participants).No study reported on our other primary outcome of general well-being. Seven studies reported that no adverse events were observed, whereas the other five studies did not report any information on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of research related to testing the effectiveness of MET is poor. Studies are generally small and at high risk of bias due to methodological deficiencies. Studies conducted to date generally provide low-quality evidence that MET is not effective for patients with LBP. There is not sufficient evidence to reliably determine whether MET is likely to be effective in practice. Large, methodologically-sound studies are necessary to investigate this question.
Topics: Acute Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscle Contraction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias
PubMed: 25723574
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009852.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).Results for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.Ketamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI -11.9 to -2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.CNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Central Nervous System Diseases; Humans; Hyperalgesia; Injections, Intravenous; Ketamine; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30570761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012033.pub4 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Nov 2016Due to the frequency of surgeries, acute postsurgical pain (APSP) is a common problem. However, the role of psychological factors in the experience of this kind of pain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Due to the frequency of surgeries, acute postsurgical pain (APSP) is a common problem. However, the role of psychological factors in the experience of this kind of pain has not been well established. In this review, we focused on presurgical psychological factors associated with the experience of APSP. A systematic search of articles was performed using PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and DARE. For each study, we assessed the risk of bias, the level of evidence, the corresponding score points and the degree of association with APSP. Separate meta-analyses were performed for the selected variables. Fifty-three relevant publications were selected. Pain catastrophizing, optimism, expectation of pain, neuroticism, anxiety (state and trait), negative affect and depression were classified as likely associated with APSP. Only one of the analysed psychological variables - locus of control - was recognized as shown unlikely association with APSP. Results of meta-analyses suggested that pain catastrophizing was most strongly linked with APSP. Results of the studies reviewed suggest that patients who do not exaggerate the negative aspects of the situation and who have positive expectation of the future before undergoing surgery report lower levels of APSP than patients who catastrophize pain and expect negative events in the future. An increasing interest in preoperative positive psychological variables has been observed over the last few years in studies of surgical patients. WHAT DOES THIS REVIEW ADD?: Pain catastrophizing, optimism, expectation of pain, neuroticism, anxiety (state and trait), negative affect and depression were classified as likely associated with acute postsurgical pain, and locus of control was classified as unlikely associated with acute postsurgical pain. Anxiety was the psychological variable most frequently measured before surgery. Pain catastrophizing was most strongly linked with acute postsurgical pain.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anxiety; Catastrophization; Depression; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 27136510
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.886 -
Journal of Dentistry Aug 2022The effects of hypnosis on acute pain have been discussed recently, resulting in increased attention in the dental/maxillofacial field offering new perspectives,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES
The effects of hypnosis on acute pain have been discussed recently, resulting in increased attention in the dental/maxillofacial field offering new perspectives, especially in emergency situations, trauma, or acute inflammatory situations where conventional pharmaceuticals are contraindicated due to allergies or intolerance reactions.
DATA
To systematically evaluate and assess the effects of hypnosis on acute dental/facial pain relief. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, controlled clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, evaluation, and validation studies, following the PRISMA guidelines, of human subjects of all ages were included.
SOURCES
Five electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, LILACS, Scopus) were screened for studies published between 1989 - 2021. A NIH quality-assessment-tool was performed.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
27 papers have been included and a meta-analysis was performed. Hypnosis has been reported to reduce intraoperative and postoperative pain as well as the use of analgesics in various dental procedures such as tooth extraction. Highly hypnotizable subjects generally respond better to hypnosis. Different hypnosis techniques were used for pain relief and relaxation. The studies show a large heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Although there are only a small number of studies on the subject so far, evidence can be confirmed for the effects of hypnosis on acute pain relief in dental/maxillofacial area. Despite the promising results, further research is needed.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Hypnosis offers a possible alternative to conventional pain medications for acute dental and maxillofacial pain, especially in cases of allergies or contraindications; it can be easily applied by a trained practitioner.
Topics: Acute Pain; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Hypnosis; Pain Management
PubMed: 35691451
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104184 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2019Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects. There is however limited knowledge on their effectiveness and which protocol may be the most beneficial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy of muscle energy techniques (MET) in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects.
DESIGN
Systematic Review.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the following database: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, NLM Pubmed and ScienceDirect. Studies regarding MET in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were considered for investigation. The main outcomes took into account range of motion, chronic and acute pain and trigger points. Two trained investigators independently screened eligible studies according to the eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Randomized control trials (RCT's) were analyzed for quality using the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies were considered eligible and included in the quantitative synthesis: 14 regarding symptomatic patients and 12 regarding asymptomatic subjects. Quality assessment of the studies through the PEDro scale observed a "moderate to high" quality of the included records.
CONCLUSIONS
MET are an effective treatment for reducing chronic and acute pain of the lower back. MET are also effective in treating chronic neck pain and chronic lateral epicondylitis. MET can be applied to increase range of motion of a joint when a functional limitation is present. Other techniques seem to be more appropriate compared to MET for trigger points.
Topics: Acute Pain; Asymptomatic Diseases; Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31462989
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0258-7 -
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 2020To synthesize the best evidence surrounding the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute pain in the clinical setting based on subjective pain scores and observed adverse... (Review)
Review
To synthesize the best evidence surrounding the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute pain in the clinical setting based on subjective pain scores and observed adverse effects. Systematic review with meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Databases, and Google Scholar. English-language randomized-controlled clinical trials comparing cannabinoids with placebo in patients with acute pain. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of three reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis and stratified by route of administration. Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Six trials (678 participants) were included examining oral (5 trials) and intramuscular (1 trial) cannabinoids. Overall, there was a small but statistically significant treatment effect favoring the use of cannabinoids over placebo (-0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.69 to -0.1, =65%, =0.03). When stratified by route of administration, intramuscular cannabinoids were found to have a significant reduction in pain relative to placebo (-2.98, 95% CI -4.09 to -1.87, =0%, <0.0001). No difference in effect was observed between oral cannabinoids and placebo (-0.21, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.22, =3%, =0.34). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (14/374, 3.7%) and placebo groups (8/304, 2.6%). There is low-quality evidence indicating that cannabinoids may be a safe alternative for a small but significant reduction in subjective pain score when treating acute pain, with intramuscular administration resulting in a greater reduction relative to oral. Higher quality, long-term randomized-controlled trials examining whether there may be a role for cannabinoids in treating acute pain are required.
PubMed: 33381643
DOI: 10.1089/can.2019.0079 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The...
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Attention; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain Perception; Pain, Procedural; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 33089901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010686.pub2 -
Pain Management Nursing : Official... Oct 2022The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the delivery and clinical efficacy of virtual reality (VR) therapeutics for acute pain management in adults and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the delivery and clinical efficacy of virtual reality (VR) therapeutics for acute pain management in adults and identify practical considerations of VR deployment, as well as current gaps in the literature.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Compendex, and Inspec was completed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keyword search terms related to acute pain and VR.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS
A systematic review of all pertinent articles published between January 1, 2000, and August 1, 2020, was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Twenty-three articles met final inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Studies utilized VR in a variety of settings for wound care, procedure-induced pain, physical or occupational therapy, dental treatment or generalized acute pain. A likely mechanism by which VR promoted analgesia in these studies is distraction. Of the reviewed studies, 19 (83%) reported decreases in pain intensity while using VR compared with no VR use or with a non-VR group.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found VR to be an effective tool for acute pain management. Findings from this review also underscore the importance of addressing the patient's sense of presence and levels of immersion, interaction, and interest when deploying VR. Future VR studies should consider incorporation of anxiety, presence, and VR side effect measures in addition to acute pain metrics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pain Management; Acute Pain; Virtual Reality; Pain Measurement; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 35868974
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2022.05.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).
Topics: Adult; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Exercise Therapy; Acute Pain; Exercise; Asia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37646368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009365.pub2