-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32297973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013581 -
Journal of the American Dental... May 2023The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Acute Pain; Pulpitis; Analgesics
PubMed: 37105668
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2023.02.013 -
Cardiovascular & Hematological Agents... 2021Acute porphyrias cause life-threatening attacks of neurovisceral non-specific symptoms, so this condition mimics many acute medical and psychiatric diseases. The disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Acute porphyrias cause life-threatening attacks of neurovisceral non-specific symptoms, so this condition mimics many acute medical and psychiatric diseases. The disease is very misdiagnosed, probably due to its low incidence and non-pathognomonic symptoms, this delays the effective treatment onset. Early diagnosis and treatment highly improve the prognosis and can prevent the development of neuropathic manifestations.
METHODS
We assembled a systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines and using Pubmed as our database. Our aim was to show some peculiarities among patients that present neurological manifestations in acute porphyria attack. We obtained the patients' age, sex, clinical presentation, eurological manifestations and porphyria type of 16 patients. We also evaluated the time between symptoms onset and neurological manifestations. The average age was 28,4 ± 11,1; 50% of patients were male.
RESULTS
AIP was the most prevalent porphyria type. The average time between symptoms onset and neurological manifestations was of 9,53 ± 11,6 days. Abdominal pain; nausea and vomiting and psychiatric manifestations were the most common symptoms preceding neurological attacks. Seizures and consciousness disturbance were the most prevalent findings within an attack. We also presenting a case to illustrate how difficult this diagnosis can be.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Animals; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Nervous System Diseases; Porphyria, Acute Intermittent; Porphyrias; Prognosis; Vomiting; Young Adult
PubMed: 32914723
DOI: 10.2174/1871525718666200910162000 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Aug 2015To conduct a systematic review to guide hand surgeons in an evidenced-based approach in managing postoperative pain. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To conduct a systematic review to guide hand surgeons in an evidenced-based approach in managing postoperative pain.
METHODS
We performed a literature review for primary research articles on management of postoperative pain in hand surgery patients using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE; PubMed), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Inclusion criteria were primary journal articles examining treatment of acute postoperative pain based on any modality. Data related to pain assessment, postoperative recovery, and total postoperative analgesic consumption were extracted.
RESULTS
A total of 903 publications were reviewed; 184 publications underwent abstract review. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 primary articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Data were noted to be heterogeneous and findings were compiled. Results were divided into groups evaluating postoperative pain medications or pain infusion catheters.
CONCLUSIONS
Although this review did not demonstrate a best practices model for postoperative pain management, it provides evidence for alternative medications and treatment strategies. The evidence available suggests that postoperative pain control should begin before surgery and that combining multiple strategies for pain treatment is beneficial. Given the increasing attention paid to narcotic prescriptions and the potential for abuse, surgeons should adopt evidence-based pain management practices. We provide an example algorithm for pain treatment in hand surgery based on available data and the authors' experience.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic III.
Topics: Acute Pain; Hand; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 26213198
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.05.024 -
Pain and Therapy Mar 2022Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method.
RESULTS
A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.
PubMed: 35041151
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-021-00346-w -
BMC Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2008Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.
METHODS
PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.
RESULTS
Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Disease; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Isomerism; Ketoprofen; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18976451
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6904-8-11 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2021The aim of this systematic review was to indirectly compare the efficacy of any intervention, administered perioperatively, on acute and persistent pain after breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to indirectly compare the efficacy of any intervention, administered perioperatively, on acute and persistent pain after breast surgery.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We searched for randomized trials comparing analgesic interventions with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing breast surgery under general anaesthesia. Primary outcome was intensity of acute pain (up to 6 hr postoperatively). Secondary outcomes were cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and chronic pain. We used an original three-step approach. First, meta-analyses were performed when data from at least three trials could be combined; secondly, trial sequential analyses were used to separate conclusive from unclear evidence. And thirdly, the quality of evidence was rated with GRADE.
RESULTS
Seventy-three trials (5,512 patients) tested loco-regional blocks (paravertebral, pectoralis), local anaesthetic infiltrations, oral gabapentinoids or intravenous administration of glucocorticoids, lidocaine, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists or alpha2 agonists. With paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a clinically relevant reduction in acute pain (visual analogue scale > 1.0 cm). With pectoralis blocks, and gabapentinoids, there was conclusive evidence of a reduction in the cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption (> 30%). With paravertebral blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a relative reduction in the incidence of PONV of 70%. For chronic pain, insufficient data were available.
CONCLUSIONS
Mainly with loco-regional blocks, there is conclusive evidence of a reduction in acute pain intensity, morphine consumption and PONV incidence after breast surgery. For rational decision making, data on chronic pain are needed.
SIGNIFICANCE
This quantitative systematic review compares eight interventions, published across 73 trials, to prevent pain after breast surgery, and grades their degree of efficacy. The most efficient interventions are paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, with moderate to low evidence for the blocks. Intravenous lidocaine and alpha2 agonists are efficacious to a lesser extent, but with a higher level of evidence. Data for chronic pain are lacking.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Lidocaine; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 32816362
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1648 -
Pain Jul 2015Evidence supporting postoperative pain management using pregabalin as an adjunct intervention across various surgical pain models is lacking. The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evidence supporting postoperative pain management using pregabalin as an adjunct intervention across various surgical pain models is lacking. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate "model-specific" comparative effectiveness and harms of pregabalin following a previously published systematic review protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through August 2013. Data were screened and single extraction with independent verification and dual risk of bias assessment was performed. Quality of evidence (QoE) was rated using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain relief at rest and on movement and reduction in postoperative analgesic consumption. A total of 1423 records were screened, and 43 studies were included. Perioperative pregabalin resulted in: 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%-21%) reduction in analgesic consumption (moderate QoE, 24 trials) and a small reduction in the magnitude of pain in surgeries associated with pronociceptive pain. Per 1000 patients, 10 more will experience blurred vision (95% CI, 5-20 more; moderate QoE, 17 trials) and 41 more sedation (95% CI, 13-77 more, 17 trials). To prevent 1 case of perioperative nausea and vomiting, the number needed to treat is 11 (95% CI: 7-28, 25 trials). Inadequate evidence addressed outcomes of enhanced recovery and serious harms. Pregabalin analgesic effectiveness is largely restricted to surgical procedures associated with pronociceptive mechanisms. The clinical significance of observed pregabalin benefits must be weighed against the uncertainties about serious harms and enhanced recovery to inform the careful selection of surgical patients. Recommendations for future research are proposed.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25830925
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000173 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jan 2024Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain.
METHODS
To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry.
RESULTS
We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review ( = 17 974) and 47 cohorts ( = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain.
INTERPRETATION
Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Prospective Studies; Acute Pain; Databases, Factual; Disease Progression
PubMed: 38253366
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230542 -
Psychological Bulletin May 2020The fear avoidance model (FAM) represents a cognitive-behavioral explanatory approach for pain chronification. The core assumption is that fear of pain (FOP) following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The fear avoidance model (FAM) represents a cognitive-behavioral explanatory approach for pain chronification. The core assumption is that fear of pain (FOP) following an acute pain experience facilitates the development of pain chronification, disability, and receding functionality. Thus, the model predicts a positive association between FOP and pain intensity in pain patients, which was frequently investigated; however, results were inconsistent. To highlight inconsistencies, we performed integrative statistical analysis aimed at evaluating the strength of the cross-sectional relation between FOP and pain intensity in clinical research and reviewing its moderation through demographic, pain-specific and psychosocial characteristics. To this end, we searched the databases PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science and included 253 independent effect size estimates ( = 42 463). The overall mean effect size was computed based on a random-effects model. By utilizing the artifact distribution method, we supplemented it with an analysis correcting for artifacts. The magnitude of the positive association equated to the threshold between a small to medium effect size, which was expected as the FAM predicts an indirect relation only. The association turned out to be stable across different FOP measures, but was significantly moderated by age, pain localization, first-time pain episode, pain onset, treatment status, and anxiety sensitivity. A potentially necessary differentiation of patient subgroups and suggestions for an adjusted methodological approach of future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Humans; Pain; Phobic Disorders
PubMed: 32212745
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000228