-
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2021This study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects...
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects of two different NIBS.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of NIBS on NP after spinal cord injury (SCI) were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM from inception to September 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata (version 16) and R software (version 4.0.2).
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies involving 507 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could reduce the pain score (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI -1.27 -0.40, = 0.00) and the pain score during follow-up (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI -0.57 -0.07, = 0.02), and the depression score of the NIBS group was not statistically significant than that of the control group (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI -0.89-0.02, = 0.06). The network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the pain score was repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) ( = 0.62) > transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) ( = 0.38).
CONCLUSION
NIBS can relieve NP after SCI. The effect of rTMS on NP is superior to that of tDCS. We suggest that the rTMS parameters are 80-120% resting motion threshold and 5-20 Hz, while the tDCS parameters are 2 mA and 20 min. However, it is necessary to carry out more large-scale, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality RCT to explore the efficacy and mechanism of NIBS for NP after SCI.
PubMed: 35221889
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.800560 -
Biology Feb 2022Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) combined with conventional physiotherapy in the recovery of patients with subacromial syndrome (SAS). A... (Review)
Review
Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) combined with conventional physiotherapy in the recovery of patients with subacromial syndrome (SAS). A search was made of the main open access health science databases. The publication date was not limited for systematic reviews but was for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which were limited to the last five years (from 2016) in English or in Spanish. Ninety-four studies were selected. In order to assess the quality of the studies, the JADAD scale or Oxford quality scoring system was used. A total of 402 patients were analyzed in all the studies in which the application of conventional physiotherapy was compared to the DN, either in a combination or in isolation. Improvements were obtained in pain intensity (Visual Analogic Scale-VAS), Range of Movement (ROM), Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT), functionality with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and in the cost-benefit ratio. DN is effective and safe in reducing the pain and disability produced by SAS, with the best combination of treatment turning out to be conventional physiotherapy together with DN, obtaining more stable and longer-lasting benefits than merely applying the techniques in isolation.
PubMed: 35205109
DOI: 10.3390/biology11020243 -
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 2022To evaluate the evidence for altered cortical and spinal cord functions in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence for altered cortical and spinal cord functions in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP).
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of databases to appraise and analyze the studies published prior to December 10, 2021 that examined spinal reflex excitability measured using Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) amplitudes, corticospinal excitability measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-elicited motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes, motor threshold (MT), or stimulus-response (SR) curves, cortical reorganization assessed using TMS cortical mapping or structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or functional changes of the brain assessed using functional MRI (fMRI) in individuals with PFP.
RESULTS
Eight studies were eligible for analyses. While an earlier study showed that pain had no effect on the H-reflex amplitude of the quadriceps muscle, more recent evidence reported a decrease in vastus medialis (VM) H-reflex amplitude in participants with PFP. VM H-reflex amplitude was correlated with pain, chronicity, physical function, and isometric knee extensor torque production in participants with PFP. Altered corticospinal excitability was reported in participants with PFP, observed as increased MT in the VM and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles. In addition, cortical reorganization has been observed, where decreased number of cortical peaks, shifts and reduced volumes, and increased overlap of motor cortex representations for the VM, VL, and rectus femoris (RF) muscles were reported in participants with PFP.
CONCLUSION
There is emerging evidence on altered cortical and spinal cord functions in individuals with PFP, however, solid conclusions cannot be drawn due to limited literature available. Further research is needed to better understand the adaptations of the brain and spinal cord in this population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020212128.
PubMed: 35197832
DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2022.791719 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Apr 2022Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical parameter that is used to reflect the efficacy of endogenous pain inhibition. CPM reliability is important for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical parameter that is used to reflect the efficacy of endogenous pain inhibition. CPM reliability is important for research and potential clinical applications. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the reliability of CPM tests in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients.
METHODS
We searched three databases for peer-reviewed studies published from inception to October 2020: EMBASE, Web of Science and NCBI. Risk of bias and the quality of the included studies were assessed. A meta-analysis with a random effects model was conducted to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS
Meta-analysis was performed on 25 papers that examined healthy participants (=21) or chronic pain patients (=4). The highest CPM intra-session reliability was with pressure as test stimulus (TS) and ischemic pressure (IP) or cold pressor test (CPT) as conditioning stimulus (CS) in healthy individuals (ICC 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.77), and pressure as TS with CPT as CS in patients (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.82). The highest inter-session ICC was with IP as TS and IP or CPT as CS (ICC 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.59) in healthy subjects. The only data available in patients for inter-session reliability were with pressure as TS and CPT as CS (ICC 0.44, 95% CI 0.11-0.69). Quality ranged from very good to excellent using the QACMRR checklist. The majority of the studies (24 out of 25) scored inadequate in Kappa coefficient reporting item of the COSMIN-ROB checklist.
CONCLUSIONS
Pressure and CPT were the TS and CS most consistently associated with good to excellent intra-session reliability in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients. The inter-session reliability was fair or less for all modalities, both in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Conditioning, Psychological; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35142147
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2021-0149 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Feb 2022Pain sensitisation plays a major role in musculoskeletal pain. However, effective treatments are limited, and although there is growing evidence that exercise may...
BACKGROUND
Pain sensitisation plays a major role in musculoskeletal pain. However, effective treatments are limited, and although there is growing evidence that exercise may improve pain sensitisation, the amount and type of exercise remains unclear. This systematic review examines the evidence for an effect of aerobic exercise on pain sensitisation in musculoskeletal conditions.
METHODS
Systematic searches of six electronic databases were conducted. Studies were included if they examined the relationship between aerobic physical activity and pain sensitisation in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, but excluding specific patient subgroups such as fibromyalgia. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methods and a qualitative analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (seven repeated measures studies and four clinical trials) of 590 participants were included. Eight studies had low to moderate risk of bias. All 11 studies found that aerobic exercise increased pressure pain thresholds or decreased pain ratings in those with musculoskeletal pain [median (minimum, maximum) improvement in pain sensitisation: 10.6% (2.2%, 24.1%)]. In these studies, the aerobic exercise involved walking or cycling, performed at a submaximal intensity but with incremental increases, for a 4-60 min duration. Improvement in pain sensitisation occurred after one session in the observational studies and after 2-12 weeks in the clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings provide evidence that aerobic exercise reduces pain sensitisation in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. Further work is needed to determine whether this translates to improved patient outcomes, including reduced disability and greater quality of life.
Topics: Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35114987
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05047-9 -
Medicine Jan 2022Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with chronic inflammation in somatic structures, which alters sensory afferents and leads to plastic changes in the nervous system.
BACKGROUND
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with chronic inflammation in somatic structures, which alters sensory afferents and leads to plastic changes in the nervous system.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was carried out, without language restrictions, period, or status of publication. The database used were Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Extra bibliographic references were extracted through the discussion with specialists, and through scientific researches in conference papers.
RESULTS
The electronic search found 938 articles. When excluding duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 5 studies were considered: 2 using EEG and 3 using TMS. Significant reduction of EEG activity in the cingulate medium cortex, reduction of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in studies with EEG, as well as the occurrence of an association between pain and motor response threshold/intracortical pain facilitation in studies with TMS were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The study contributes to a better understanding of the neurophysiological changes seen in the cingulate medium cortex, decrease in CPM and motor response threshold/intracortical pain facilitation. Advances in neuroplasticity studies may aid in the screening for early diagnosis of knee OA in the future. However, more studies are necessary.
Topics: Electroencephalography; Humans; Neuronal Plasticity; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pain Measurement; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 35060535
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028616 -
Pflugers Archiv : European Journal of... Apr 2022Sensory neurons are responsible for the generation and transmission of nociceptive signals from the periphery to the central nervous system. They encompass a broadly... (Review)
Review
Sensory neurons are responsible for the generation and transmission of nociceptive signals from the periphery to the central nervous system. They encompass a broadly heterogeneous population of highly specialized neurons. The understanding of the molecular choreography of individual subpopulations is essential to understand physiological and pathological pain states. Recently, it became evident that species differences limit transferability of research findings between human and rodents in pain research. Thus, it is necessary to systematically compare and categorize the electrophysiological data gained from human and rodent dorsal root ganglia neurons (DRGs). In this systematic review, we condense the available electrophysiological data defining subidentities in human and rat DRGs. A systematic search on PUBMED yielded 30 studies on rat and 3 studies on human sensory neurons. Defined outcome parameters included current clamp, voltage clamp, cell morphology, pharmacological readouts, and immune reactivity parameters. We compare evidence gathered for outcome markers to define subgroups, offer electrophysiological parameters for the definition of neuronal subtypes, and give a framework for the transferability of electrophysiological findings between species. A semiquantitative analysis revealed that for rat DRGs, there is an overarching consensus between studies that C-fiber linked sensory neurons display a lower action potential threshold, higher input resistance, a larger action potential overshoot, and a longer afterhyperpolarization duration compared to other sensory neurons. They are also more likely to display an infliction point in the falling phase of the action potential. This systematic review points out the need of more electrophysiological studies on human sensory neurons.
Topics: Action Potentials; Animals; Electrophysiological Phenomena; Ganglia, Spinal; Humans; Pain; Rats; Sensory Receptor Cells
PubMed: 35031856
DOI: 10.1007/s00424-021-02656-6 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, affecting ~800,000 people every year. Fibromyalgia is an extremely prevalent rheumatic disease with a predisposition for...
Suicidal Behavior in Fibromyalgia Patients: Rates and Determinants of Suicide Ideation, Risk, Suicide, and Suicidal Attempts-A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Over 390,000 Fibromyalgia Patients.
Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, affecting ~800,000 people every year. Fibromyalgia is an extremely prevalent rheumatic disease with a predisposition for comorbid anxiety and depression, which are known risk factors for suicidal behavior. Suicidality and relevant risk factors for suicidal behavior have not been thoroughly studied in patients with fibromyalgia. To investigate the risk of suicidal ideation and attempts in patients with fibromyalgia. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported according to the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses" (PRISMA) standards. Also, the gray literature was extensively searched. Thirteen studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, including 394,087 fibromyalgia patients. Sample size ranged from 44 to 199,739 subjects, mean age ranged from 45.8 to 54.5 years while the female percentage with fibromyalgia ranged from 17.1 to 100.0%. The overall suicide ideation prevalence was 29.57% (95%CI 1.84-72.07), with an OR 9.12 of (95%CI 1.42-58.77), ranging from 2.34 (95%CI 1.49-3.66) to 26.89 (95%CI 5.72-126.42). Pooled suicide attempt prevalence was 5.69% [95%CI 1.26-31.34], with an OR of 3.12 [95%CI 1.37-7.12]. Suicide risk was higher with respect to the general population with an OR of 36.77 (95%CI 15.55-96.94), as well as suicide events with an HR of 1.38 (95%CI 1.17-1.71). Determinants of suicidality were found to be: employment status, disease severity, obesity and drug dependence, chronic pain and co-morbidities, in particular depression, anxiety, poor sleep, and global mental health. However, in some cases, after adjusting for psychiatric conditions, the threshold of statistical significance was not achieved. Fibromyalgia patients are particularly prone to suicide, in terms of ideation, attempt, risk and events, warranting a pre-emptive screening of their mental health status. Given the few studies available, the high amount of heterogeneity, the evidence of publications bias and the lack of statistical significance when adjusting for underlying psychiatric co-morbidities, further high-quality studies should be conducted. ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/Y4BUE.
PubMed: 34867495
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.629417 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Wound Infection
PubMed: 34854473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013756.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain. Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias). There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision). No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia. Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited. Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm. Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial. Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias). Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Delirium; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Inpatients; Medication Review
PubMed: 34826144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013307.pub3