-
BMJ Open Feb 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 381 studies (the meta-TENS study).
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or 50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain.
RESULTS
The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=-0·96 (95% CI -1·14 to -0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = -0·72 (95% CI -0·95 to -0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators.
CONCLUSION
There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019125054.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Pain Measurement; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35144946
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051073 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2008Non-specific neck pain has a postural or mechanical basis and affects about two thirds of people at some stage, especially in middle age. Acute neck pain resolves within... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-specific neck pain has a postural or mechanical basis and affects about two thirds of people at some stage, especially in middle age. Acute neck pain resolves within days or weeks, but may become chronic in about 10% of people. Whiplash injuries follow sudden acceleration-deceleration of the neck, such as in road traffic or sporting accidents. Up to 40% of people continue to report symptoms 15 years after the accident, although this varies between countries.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for people with non-specific neck pain without severe neurological deficit? What are the effects of treatments for acute whiplash injury? What are the effects of treatments for chronic whiplash injury? What are the effects of treatments for neck pain with radiculopathy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 91 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of the evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, biofeedback, drug treatments (analgesics, antidepressants, epidural steroid injections, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), early mobilisation, early return to normal activity, exercise, heat or cold, manipulation (alone or plus exercise), mobilisation, multimodal treatment, patient education, percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy, physical treatments, postural techniques (yoga, pilates, Alexander technique), pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment, soft collars and special pillows, spray and stretch, surgery, traction, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).
Topics: Humans; Neck; Neck Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Radiculopathy; Time Factors; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 19445809
DOI: No ID Found -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of preemptive analgesia on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.
METHODS
In this network meta-analysis, 19 preemptive analgesia regimens were compared. Two authors independently searched databases, selected studies, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the intensity of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included the time to first analgesia rescue and incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
In total, 188 studies were included (13 769 subjects). Ten of 19 regimens reduced postoperative pain intensity compared with placebo, with mean differences 100-point scale ranging from -4.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.61 to -0.96.) for gabapentin at 48 h to -21.99 (95% CI: -36.97 to -7.02) for lornoxicam at 6 h. Eight regimens reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo, with mean differences ranging from -0.48 mg (95% CI: -0.89 to -0.08) i.v. milligrams of morphine equivalents (IMME) for acetaminophen at 12 h to -2.27 IMME (95% CI: -3.07 to -1.46) for ibuprofen at 24 h. Five regimens delayed rescue analgesia from 1.75 (95% CI: 0.59-2.91) h for gabapentin to 7.35 (95% CI: 3.66-11.04) h for epidural analgesia. Five regimens had a lower incidence of PONV compared with placebo, ranging from an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for ibuprofen to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) for pregabalin.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of preemptive analgesia reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea or vomiting, and delays rescue analgesia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021232593.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 36404458
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.038 -
Pain Physician Nov 2017Music is increasingly used as an adjuvant for the management of chronic pain (CP), as it is non-invasive, inexpensive, and patients usually report positive experiences... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Music is increasingly used as an adjuvant for the management of chronic pain (CP), as it is non-invasive, inexpensive, and patients usually report positive experiences with it. However, little is known about its clinical efficacy in chronic pain patients.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to determine the effect of music as an adjuvant for chronic pain, as well as to identify characteristics of music interventions associated with positive clinical outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients that reported any type of music intervention for chronic pain, chosen by the researcher or patient, lasting for any duration. Searches were performed using PsycINFO, Scopus, and PubMed for RCTs published until the end of May 2016. The primary outcome was reduction in self-reported pain using a standardized pain measurement instrument, reported post-intervention. The secondary outcomes were: quality of life measures, depression, anxiety, and related measures.
METHODS
The study was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016039837), and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). We identified 768 titles and abstracts, and we included 14 RTCs that fulfilled our criteria. The sample size of the studies varied between 25 and 200 patients.
RESULTS
We found that music reduced self-reported chronic pain and depressive symptoms. We also found that music had a greater effect when the patient chose the music, compared to when the researcher chose it.
LIMITATIONS
The sample size of RCTs was small and sometimes with different outcome measures. There was high heterogeneity associated with pooled estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that music may be beneficial as an adjuvant for chronic pain patients, as it reduces self-reported pain and its common comorbidities. Importantly, the analgesic effect of music appears higher with self-chosen over researcher-chosen music.
KEY WORDS
Pain, music, analgesia, music-induced analgesia, chronic pain, meta-analysis, systematic review, therapy.
Topics: Analgesia; Chronic Pain; Humans; Music; Music Therapy; Pain Management
PubMed: 29149141
DOI: No ID Found -
Anaesthesia Jun 2019Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0-10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.2), I = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Remifentanil
PubMed: 30950522
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14657 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I = 73%; Tau = 1.89; Chi = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 29781504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function.
RESULTS
Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Epidural; Female; Humans; Intercostal Nerves; Male; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34779845
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33394 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27121907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence on the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of mind-body relaxation techniques for pain management in labour on maternal and neonatal well-being during and after labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 May 2017), CINAHL (1980 to 24 May 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (18 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 May 2017), the ISRCTN Register (18 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 May 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (including quasi randomised and cluster trials) comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update includes 19 studies (2519 women), 15 of which (1731 women) contribute data. Interventions examined included relaxation, yoga, music and mindfulness. Approximately half of the studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, and unclear risk of bias for, allocation concealment, reporting bias and other bias. We assessed the evidence from these studies as ranging from low to very low quality, and therefore the effects below should be interpreted with caution.RelaxationWe found that relaxation compared to usual care provided lowered the intensity of pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) during the latent phase of labour (mean difference (MD) -1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.53, one trial, 40 women). Four trials reported pain intensity in the active phase; there was high heterogeneity between trials and very low-quality evidence suggested that there was no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for this outcome (MD -1.08, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.41, four trials, 271 women, random-effects analysis). Very low-quality evidence showed that women receiving relaxation reported greater satisfaction with pain relief during labour (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women), and showed no clear benefit for satisfaction with childbirth experience (assessed using different scales) (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.31, three trials, 1176 women). For safety outcomes there was very low-quality evidence of no clear reduction in assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84, four trials, 1122 women) or in caesarean section rates (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.01, four trials, 1122 women). Sense of control in labour, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.YogaWhen comparing yoga to control interventions there was low-quality evidence that yoga lowered pain intensity (measured on a scale of 0 to 10) with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.77 to -0.47, one trial, 66 women), greater satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women) and greater satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42 one trial, 66 women (assessed using the Maternal Comfort Scale with higher score indicating greater comfort). Sense of control in labour, breastfeeding, assisted vaginal birth, and caesarean section were not reported under this comparison.MusicWhen comparing music to control interventions there was evidence of lower pain intensity in the latent phase for women receiving music (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.45, random-effects analysis, two trials, 192 women) and very low-quality evidence of no clear benefit in the active phase (MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.07, three trials, 217 women). Very low-quality evidence suggested no clear benefit in terms of reducing assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05, one trial, 156 women) or caesarean section rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.70, two trials, 216 women). Satisfaction with pain relief, sense of control in labour, satisfaction with childbirth experience, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.Audio analgesiaOne trial evaluating audio analgesia versus control only reported one outcome and showed no evidence of benefit in satisfaction with pain relief.MindfulnessOne trial evaluating mindfulness versus usual care found an increase in sense of control for the mindfulness group (using the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory) (MD 31.30, 95% CI 1.61 to 60.99, 26 women). There is no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for satisfaction in childbirth, or for caesarean section rate, need for assisted vaginal delivery or need for pharmacological pain relief. No other outcomes were reported in this trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Relaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio-analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Mindfulness; Music Therapy; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Supine Position; Yoga
PubMed: 29589650
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.pub2