-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low-back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low-back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy in adult non-specific acute, subacute and chronic low-back pain versus no treatment and other conservative treatments.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL databases to October 2004; citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy for adult non-specific low-back pain and measuring pain, function, return-to-work/absenteeism, and/or global improvement outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-one randomized controlled trials (6390 participants) met inclusion criteria: acute (11), subacute (6) and chronic (43) low-back pain (1 unclear). Evidence was found of effectiveness in chronic populations relative to comparisons at all follow-up periods; pooled mean improvement was 7.3 points (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.9) for pain (out of 100), 2.5 points (1.0 to 3.9) for function (out of 100) at earliest follow-up. In studies investigating patients (i.e. presenting to healthcare providers) mean improvement was 13.3 points (5.5 to 21.1) for pain, 6.9 (2.2 to 11.7) for function, representing significantly greater improvement over studies where participants included those recruited from a general population (e.g. with advertisements). There is some evidence of effectiveness of graded-activity exercise program in subacute low-back pain in occupational settings, though the evidence for other types of exercise therapy in other populations is inconsistent. There was evidence of equal effectiveness relative to comparisons in acute populations [pain: 0.03 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 1.4)].
LIMITATIONS
This review largely reflects limitations of the literature, including low quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures, inconsistent and poor reporting, and possibility of publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Exercise therapy appears to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low-back pain, particularly in healthcare populations. In subacute low-back pain there is some evidence that a graded activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, though evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low-back pain, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.
Topics: Acute Disease; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16034851
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37014979
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013815.pub2 -
Medicine May 2019The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not only at eliminating pain but further preventing its recurrence in long-term recovery scenarios. Physicians have complied with the appropriate management of acute and chronic pain; however, this short or long-term opioid exposure provides opportunities for long-term opioid misuse and abuse, leading to addiction of patients who receive an opioid prescription and/or diversion of this pain medication to other people without prescription. Several reviews attempted to summarize the epidemiology and management of opioid misuse, this integrative review seeks to summarize the current literature related with responsible parties of this opioid abuse crisis and discuss potential associations between demographics (ethnicity, culture, gender, religion) and opioid accessibility, abuse and overdose.
METHODS
We performed an extensive literature search in Google Scholar and Pub Med databases that were published between December 7, 1999 and January 9, 2018 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were referenced using medical subject headings (MeSH) that included "opioids", "over-prescription", "opioid consumption", or "opioid epidemic". The final review of all data bases was conducted on July 24, 2018.
RESULTS
A total of 7160 articles were originally identified. After 3340 duplicate articles were removed, 3820 manuscripts were removed after title and abstract screening. Following this, 120 manuscripts underwent eligibility selection with only 70 publications being selected as reliable full-texts addressing related factors surrounding the opioid crisis.
CONCLUSION
With approximately 100 million people suffering from both chronic and acute pain in the United States (US) in 2016, opiates will continue to remain a prominent class of medication in healthcare facilities and homes across the US. Over 66% of total overdose episodes in 2016 were opioid-related, a figure that attests to the severity and wide-spread nature of this issue. A three-point approach accentuating the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of both those currently affected and at-risk in the future may be the comprehensive solution.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Behavior, Addictive; Chronic Pain; Delivery of Health Care; Drug Overdose; Epidemics; Female; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Male; Middle Aged; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain Management; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 31096439
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015425 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Apr 2017A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available.
PURPOSE
To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention.
DATA EXTRACTION
One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications.
LIMITATIONS
Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed.
CONCLUSION
Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Neuromuscular Agents; Radiculopathy
PubMed: 28192790
DOI: 10.7326/M16-2458 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain.
METHODS
We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Nonprescription Drugs; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26544675
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010794.pub2 -
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 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Dec 2022This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks.
RESULTS
Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: : (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ.
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.
Topics: Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Migraine Disorders; Headache; Acute Pain
PubMed: 36081276
DOI: 10.1177/03331024221123058 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023As the number of reports of post-acute COVID-19 musculoskeletal manifestations is rapidly rising, it is important to summarize the current available literature in order... (Review)
Review
As the number of reports of post-acute COVID-19 musculoskeletal manifestations is rapidly rising, it is important to summarize the current available literature in order to shed light on this new and not fully understood phenomenon. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to provide an updated picture of post-acute COVID-19 musculoskeletal manifestations of potential rheumatological interest, with a particular focus on joint pain, new onset of rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases and presence of autoantibodies related to inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. We included 54 original papers in our systematic review. The prevalence of arthralgia was found to range from 2% to 65% within a time frame varying from 4 weeks to 12 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Inflammatory arthritis was also reported with various clinical phenotypes such as symmetrical polyarthritis with RA-like pattern similar to other prototypical viral arthritis, polymyalgia-like symptoms, or acute monoarthritis and oligoarthritis of large joints resembling reactive arthritis. Moreover, high figures of post-COVID-19 patients fulfilling the classification criteria for fibromyalgia were found, ranging from 31% to 40%. Finally, the available literature about prevalence of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies was largely inconsistent. In conclusion, manifestations of rheumatological interest such as joint pain, new-onset inflammatory arthritis and fibromyalgia are frequently reported after COVID-19, highlighting the potential role of SARS-CoV-2 as a trigger for the development of autoimmune conditions and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases.
PubMed: 37296705
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13111850 -
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2023Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of buprenorphine for the management of acute post-surgical pain reported in published studies in the years 2015-2022.... (Review)
Review
Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of buprenorphine for the management of acute post-surgical pain reported in published studies in the years 2015-2022. Comprehensive research was performed by using online resources like PUBMED and the Wiley Library database to gather the relevant literature. Two authors were assigned to independently collect the information. Cochran's Q-test and I square statistic were used to determine the heterogeneity across the studies. Publication bias was estimated by using the Egger regression analysis and found to be significantly present once the value <0.05. In this review, 15 studies were included. The pooled ratio of pain reduction after 12 hours of surgery was reported as 11.2% with 97% heterogeneity. Day one shows 5.9 reductions in pain with 98% heterogeneity. The 3% more pain was reduced on day 2. The day 3 pooled pain reduction score was observed as 1.9%. The overall pool prevalence of pain reduction was noted as 6.2% at different time duration with significant heterogeneity of 100%. Buprenorphine transdermal and sublingual both have significant pain relief scores. The analgesic drug consumption was reduced at the end of the follow-up duration.
PubMed: 37032687
DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_822_22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. We incorporated 76 new studies into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Blood Specimen Collection; Pain Management; Pain, Procedural; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Child, Preschool
PubMed: 37314064
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub4