-
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jan 2023Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic condition following inciting events such as fractures or surgeries with sensorimotor and autonomic manifestations and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic condition following inciting events such as fractures or surgeries with sensorimotor and autonomic manifestations and poor prognosis. This review aimed to provide conclusive evidence about the sensory phenotype of CRPS based on quantitative sensory testing (QST) to understand the underlying pain mechanisms and guide treatment strategies.
DATABASES
Eight databases were searched based on a previously published protocol. Forty studies comparing QST outcomes (thermal, mechanical, vibration, and electric detection thresholds, thermal, mechanical, pressure, and electric pain thresholds, wind-up ratio, mechanical pain sensitivity, allodynia, flare area, area after pinprick hyperalgesia, pleasantness after C-tactile stimulation, and pain ratings) in chronic CRPS (adults and children) versus healthy controls were included.
RESULTS
From 37 studies (14 of low quality, 22 of fair quality, and 1 of good quality), adults with CRPS showed: (i) significant loss of thermal, mechanical, and vibration sensations, significant gain of thermal and mechanical pain thresholds, significant elevation of pain ratings, and no difference in wind-up ratio; (ii) significant reduction of pleasantness levels and increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, in the affected limb. From three fair-quality studies, adolescents and children with CRPS showed loss of cold detection with cold hyperalgesia in the affected limb. There was moderate to substantial overall heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Diffuse thermal and mechanical hypoesthesia with primary and secondary hyperalgesia, enhanced pain facilitation evidenced by increased area of pinprick hyperalgesia, and elevated pain ratings are dominant in adults with CRPS. Adolescents and children with CRPS showed less severe sensory abnormalities.
Topics: Humans; Hyperalgesia; Pain Measurement; Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36593515
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03461-2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022Myofascial trigger points (TrP) are diagnosed upon the presence of clinical signs among which hypersensitivity is considered one of the most important. The detection of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial trigger points (TrP) are diagnosed upon the presence of clinical signs among which hypersensitivity is considered one of the most important. The detection of the pressure pain threshold (PPT) is used to quantify the degree of hypersensitivity. However, there is a lack of normative data about how hypersensitive a TrP is. Therefore, the objective was to quantify the PPT for myofascial TrP in the upper trapezius muscle and its modification after manual or instrumental physical therapy interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted among three databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro). Two independent reviewers conducted the electronic search and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with a high-risk bias indicated that the PPT at TrP sites was 105.11 kPa lower (95% CI: -148.93; -61.28) at active TrP sites (Chi-squared = 1.07, df = 1 ( = 0.30), I = 7%) compared to the PPT of the upper trapezius muscles of healthy subjects. In addition, the PPT of TrP was also lower than the reference values coming from the pain-free population. Moreover, the PPT increased after both manual and instrumental treatment by 28.36 kPa (95% CI: 10.75; 45.96) and 75.49 kPa (95% CI: 18.02; 132.95), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study show that TrP has a decreased PPT when compared to healthy muscles and that physical therapy may increase the PPT. However, the clinical relevance of this decreased PPT needs to be further elucidated. Further, the high risk of bias in all the retrieved studies undermines the validity of the results.
PubMed: 36498817
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237243 -
Journal of Ultrasonography Sep 2022The purpose of this study was to use ultrasonographic data to rule out and distinguish diseases that cause acute pelvic pain.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to use ultrasonographic data to rule out and distinguish diseases that cause acute pelvic pain.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
The literature was reviewed using a systematic search of the databases Google Scholars and PubMed, as well as through hand searching. We looked through a total of 35 articles, but only 26 were selected after preliminary screening. Furthermore, 14 articles were left out because they required a membership, copyright clearance, or featured non-English references. There were a total of 12 articles included in the final revuew. Among all the study-related articles, only original research studies and one systematic review that sonographically explored the gynecological etiology of acute pelvic pain were selected.
RESULTS
Acute pelvic pain in women might be difficult to identify between gynecologic and non-gynecologic causes based solely on patient history and examination. Advanced imaging, like ultrasound, aids in determining the reason. Pelvic inflammatory disease can be difficult to diagnose, and clinicians should use a low threshold for starting presumptive treatment in order to avoid significant long-term effects such as infertility.
CONCLUSIONS
Pelvic pain can be acute, chronic or functional. Imaging investigations such as CT, ultrasonography, and MRI can assist in establishing a diagnosis. Particularly ultrasound scanning makes it possible to arrive at a diagnosis with a high degree of precision.
PubMed: 36482928
DOI: 10.15557/jou.2022.0030 -
Pain and Therapy Feb 2023Smoking is a known risk factor for developing various pain-related disorders. However, acute pain often triggers the craving for cigarette consumption, resulting in a... (Review)
Review
Smoking is a known risk factor for developing various pain-related disorders. However, acute pain often triggers the craving for cigarette consumption, resulting in a positive feedback mechanism. In addition, there is evidence of decreased pain tolerance during the early stages of abstinence. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate whether a period of decreased pain tolerance and increased pain intensity occurs during smoking cessation. A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed and Web of Science databases for controlled studies investigating the influence of smoking cessation on acute (defined as pain presentation of < 3 months) and postoperative pain. The outcomes of interest included pain perception threshold, pain tolerance, pain intensity, and postoperative opioid requirements. The search strategy yielded 1478 studies, of which 13 clinical studies met our inclusion criteria. The included studies collectively represented data from 1721 participants from four countries. Of these, 43.3% of the included individuals were females. The mean age of the included subjects was 44.2 ± 8.2 years. The duration of smoking cessation varied considerably. The shortest duration was 2 h; others investigated the effect after more than 1 month of smoking cessation. Smokers had a history of 14.6 ± 9.9 years of nicotine abuse. The mean number of daily smoked cigarettes was 17.5 ± 10.3. Most studies examined in this systematic review show a negative influence of smoking cessation on acute pain. However, the affected pain modalities, the duration of the altered pain perception, and whether male and female smokers are equally affected could not be ascertained due to high heterogeneity and few available studies.
PubMed: 36478326
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00462-1 -
Journal of the American College of... Dec 2022The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical signs, symptoms, laboratory investigations,...
STUDY OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical signs, symptoms, laboratory investigations, and imaging modalities commonly used in patients with clinically suspected renal colic.
METHODS
We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis according to an a priori, registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42017055153). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), and applied a random-effects model for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Among 7641 references screened, 76 were included in the systematic review and 53 were included in the meta-analyis. The overall pooled prevalence for ureteral stones was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-67%). No individual demographic feature, symptom, or sign when present had an LR+ ≥2.0 for identifying ureterolithiasis. A (Sex, Timing and Origin of pain, race, presence or absence of Nausea, and Erythrocytes) STONE score ≥10 increased (sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.91, LR 5.3 [95% CI, 4.1-6.7]) and a STONE score <6 reduced the likelihood of ureteral stones (sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.43, LR 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.22]). Standard-dose (sensitivity 0.96, specificity 0.94, LR+ 16 [95% CI, 11-23], LR- 0.05 [95% CI, 0.03-0.07]) and low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.94, LR+ 17 [95% CI, 8.8-31], LR- 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.19]) were the most useful imaging techniques for identifying patients with or without ureteral stones.
CONCLUSIONS
Individual signs, symptoms, or the presence of microscopic hematuria do not substantially impact the likelihood of ureteral stones in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. The STONE score at high and low thresholds and a modified STONE score at a high threshold may sufficiently guide physicians' decisions to obtain imaging. Low-dose, non-contrast CT imaging provides superior diagnostic accuracy compared with all other imaging index tests that are comparable with standard CT imaging. Limitations of the evidence include methodological shortcomings and considerable heterogeneity of the included studies.
PubMed: 36474707
DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12831 -
Medicine Nov 2022A review was conducted to determine a pressure algometry measurement during abdominal examination that reflects clinical settings of traditional Korean medicine.
Abdominal examination using pressure pain threshold algometer reflecting clinical characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine in Korea: A systematic review and a brief proposal.
BACKGROUND
A review was conducted to determine a pressure algometry measurement during abdominal examination that reflects clinical settings of traditional Korean medicine.
METHODS
After reviewing the previous studies, we have proposed a reference index, common posture and method for performing pressure algometry during abdominal examination. Keyword search using eight databases was performed. To identify the characteristics of pressure algometry during abdominal examination, keywords (e.g., abdomen, abdominal examination) were searched in national Korean databases, including Korean studies Information System (KISS), Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). To examine the methods of measuring pressure pain threshold (PPT) with validity and reliability, combination keywords (e.g., PPT, pressure algometry, pressure pain, validity, reliability) were searched in Pubmed, Cochrane library, Google scholar, Ovid Embase, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI).
RESULTS
A total of 652 articles were identified, and 22 relevant articles were included. The following main indices are proposed as a standardized pressure algometry method during abdominal examination: unit of measurements, measuring tools, target locations, pressure area, pressure rate, posture of patients, and evaluators. Based on the results of the review combined with clinical practice, useful indices for pressure algometer during abdominal examination were derived (target location: CV 12, unit of measurement: MPa, pressure area: 4 cm2, pressure rate: 0.098 MPa/s, posture of patient: supine position, number, and intervals of measurement: three consecutive measurements at intervals of 30 seconds, 5 minutes rest prior to commencement). Postures and method sequence of pressure algometry during abdominal examination are also proposed.
CONCLUSIONS
Using standardized indices, postures and method for abdominal examination in clinical settings will help make objective assessments.
Topics: Humans; Pain Threshold; Pain Measurement; Reproducibility of Results; Pressure; Pain; Complementary Therapies
PubMed: 36401383
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031417 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Dec 2022Many experimental sleep deprivation (SD) studies were conducted to clarify the causal relationship between sleep and pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many experimental sleep deprivation (SD) studies were conducted to clarify the causal relationship between sleep and pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to update the evidence regarding the effects of different experimental SD paradigms on various pain outcomes. Five databases were searched from their inception to June 2022. Separate random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled effect sizes (ES) of different experimental SD paradigms on various pain outcomes. Thirty-one studies involving 699 healthy individuals and 47 individuals with chronic pain were included. For healthy individuals, limited evidence substantiated that total SD significantly reduced pain threshold and tolerance (ES 0.74-0.95), while moderate evidence supported that partial SD significantly increased spontaneous pain intensity (ES 0.30). Very limited to moderate evidence showed that sleep fragmentation significantly increased peripheral and central sensitization in healthy individuals (ES 0.42-0.79). Further, there was very limited evidence that total or partial SD significantly aggravated spontaneous pain intensity in people with chronic pain. Our results accentuated that different SD paradigms differentially increased subjective pain intensity and worsened peripheral/central pain sensitization in healthy individuals, whereas the corresponding findings in people with chronic pain remain uncertain. Further rigorous studies are warranted to quantify their relationships in clinical populations.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Pain; Sleep Deprivation; Health Status; Pain Perception
PubMed: 36334461
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695 -
Medicine Oct 2022Percutaneous neuromodulation (PNM) consists in using electrical stimulation on a peripheral nerve by using a needle as an electrode in order to lessen the pain and...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous neuromodulation (PNM) consists in using electrical stimulation on a peripheral nerve by using a needle as an electrode in order to lessen the pain and restore both neuromuscular and nervous system functions. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the current scientific evidence of the effects of PNM on pain and physical capabilities in neuromusculoskeletal injuries.
METHODS
Data sources: There was used the PRISMA protocol. In order to do the literature research, there were used the PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Study selection or eligibility criteria: There were also included experimental clinical trials published between 2010 and nowadays, tested on humans, which feature treatment based on needles with electrical stimulation in order to treat neuromusculoskeletal injuries. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: A quality assessment was performed according to the PEDro scale and reviewed the impact factor and quartile of the journal.
RESULTS
The treatment resulted in significant improvement in terms of pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, balance, muscular endurance, functionality/disability, subjective improvement, function of the descending pain modulatory system, and intake of drugs. Limitations: the lack of previous research studies on the subject and the lack of data on opioid intake in the selected studies.
CONCLUSION
Treatment based on PNM may be an alternative when treating injuries in soft tissues without significant side effects. However, there are few articles investigating the effects of PNM so more evidence is needed to draw solid conclusions.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 36254060
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36250418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011915.pub2 -
Psychiatria Danubina Sep 2022Neuropathic pain (NP) affects approximately 7% of the general population and is often accompanied by depressive symptoms with up to 85% of NP patients are suffering from...
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain (NP) affects approximately 7% of the general population and is often accompanied by depressive symptoms with up to 85% of NP patients are suffering from comorbid depression (CD). The noninvasive neuromodulation technique of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an established proven clinically effective nonpharmacological treatment for depression, and considered a highly promising option also for reducing the burden of NP by relieving pain perception and increasing patients' quality of life. In this article, we systematically review the various clinical protocols used in TMS treatments in patients suffering from NP and comorbid depression.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
Using Scopus, Elsevier, and PubMed databases, our keyword search identified 639 articles, of which 22 were selected for detailed analysis based on the inclusion criteria and in consideration of the heterogeneous study design of the majority of small trials. We evaluated the clinical efficacy in NP and comorbid depression, in relation to various TMS protocol parameters including coil type, target brain area, locus of increased evoked motor potential, amplitude of stimulation, duration of session, number of sessions per day/month, as well as inter-session-intervals, number and frequency of trains, and number and frequency of pulses.
RESULTS
The most effective TMS protocols for treating comorbid NP and depression, as marked by decreased pain and depression scores proved to entail figure-of-8 coils targeting the primary motor area (M1), and applying at least ten daily rTMS sessions using high frequency stimulation (10-20 Hz) with a sub threshold intensity of 80-90% RMT and a total number of pulses of at least 1500 per session. Performing an additional maintenance phase after the acute treatment phase may strengthen and prolong the therapeutic effects of rTMS.
CONCLUSIONS
Our database analysis suggests that a specific combination of TMS parameters is most effective for treating NP and comorbid depression. Although results are promising, the heterogeneity within the literature is such that many underpowered studies contribute rather little to the outcome, as evident by our inclusion / exclusion analysis. Moreover, we see a need for consensus on clinical protocols and inclusion of much larger clinical samples. Furthermore, we conclude that future research should entail advanced TMS procedures with multiple brain region stimulation (sequential or concurrent), and address issues of TMS maintenance and improved coil engineering for targeting deeper structures.
Topics: Comorbidity; Depression; Humans; Neuralgia; Quality of Life; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36170712
DOI: No ID Found