Electroencephalographic Patterns in Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pinheiro ES
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4767709 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Electroencephalographic Patterns in Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Pinheiro Eulália Silva dos Santos ES de Queirós Fernanda Costa FC Montoya Pedro P Santos Cleber Luz CL do Nascimento Marion Alves MA Ito Clara Hikari CH Silva Manuela M Nunes Santos David Barros DB Benevides Silvia S Miranda José Garcia Vivas JG Sá Katia Nunes KN Baptista Abrahão Fontes AF
PloS one 20160225 2
The main objective of this study is to review and summarize recent findings on electroencephalographic patterns in individuals with chronic pain. We also discuss recent advances in the use of quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) for the assessment of pathophysiology and biopsychosocial factors involved in its maintenance over time. Data collection took place from February 2014 to July 2015 in PubMed, SciELO and PEDro databases. Data from cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies, as ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review.MethodsWe will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table.ResultsEthics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/22821.
| S-EPMC7582146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain affects 100 million Americans and is most often treated in primary care, where the health care provider shortage remains a challenge. Nurse practitioners (NPs) represent a growing solution, yet their patterns of chronic pain management are understudied. Additionally, prescriptive authority limitations in many states limit NPs from prescribing opioids and often exist due to concerns of NP-driven opioid overprescribing. Little evidence on NP pain management prescribing patterns exists to address these issues.ObjectiveSystematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to examine opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care. Eligible studies scored ≥60% on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist.Data sourcesSearches within PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science.ConclusionsThree themes were elucidated: 1) opioid prescribing in primary care, 2) similarities and differences in opioid prescribing by provider type, and 3) nonopioid pain management strategies. All provider groups had similar opioid prescribing patterns, although NPs and PAs may be slightly less likely to prescribe opioids than physicians. Although some studies suggested that NPs/PAs had higher opioid prescribing rates compared with physicians, methodological flaws may undermine these conclusions. Evidence is also lacking on nonopioid prescribing patterns across disciplines.Implications for practiceNurse practitioner/PA prescriptive authority limitations may not be as effective of a solution for addressing opioid overprescribing as transdisciplinary interventions targeting the highest subset of opioid prescribers. Future research should examine prescribing patterns of nonopioid, including nonpharmacologic, therapies.
| S-EPMC9562618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProprioceptive training (PrT) is popularly applied as preventive or rehabilitative exercise method in various sports and rehabilitation settings. Its effect on pain and function is only poorly evaluated. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and analyse the existing data on the effects of PrT on pain alleviation and functional restoration in patients with chronic (? 3 months) neck- or back pain.MethodsRelevant electronic databases were searched from their respective inception to February 2014. Randomised controlled trials comparing PrT with conventional therapies or inactive controls in patients with neck- or low back pain were included. Two review authors independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Data extraction was performed by the first author and crosschecked by a second author. Quality of findings was assessed and rated according to GRADE guidelines. Pain and functional status outcomes were extracted and synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively.ResultsIn total, 18 studies involving 1380 subjects described interventions related to PrT (years 1994-2013). 6 studies focussed on neck-, 12 on low back pain. Three main directions of PrT were identified: Discriminatory perceptive exercises with somatosensory stimuli to the back (pPrT, n=2), multimodal exercises on labile surfaces (mPrT, n=13), or joint repositioning exercise with head-eye coordination (rPrT, n=3). Comparators entailed usual care, home based training, educational therapy, strengthening, stretching and endurance training, or inactive controls. Quality of studies was low and RoB was deemed moderate to high with a high prevalence of unclear sequence generation and group allocation (>60%). Low quality evidence suggests PrT may be more effective than not intervening at all. Low quality evidence suggests that PrT is no more effective than conventional physiotherapy. Low quality evidence suggests PrT is inferior to educational and behavioural approaches.ConclusionsThere are few relevant good quality studies on proprioceptive exercises. A descriptive summary of the evidence suggests that there is no consistent benefit in adding PrT to neck- and low back pain rehabilitation and functional restoration.
| S-EPMC4247630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is common, often widespread and has a substantial impact on health and quality of life. The relationship between chronic pain and mortality is unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate evidence for a relationship between chronic pain and mortality.MethodsA search of ten electronic databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted in March 2012, and updated until March 2014. Observational studies investigating the association between chronic or widespread pain (including fibromyalgia) and mortality were included. Risk of bias was assessed and a meta-analysis was undertaken to quantify heterogeneity and pool results. A narrative review was undertaken to explore similarities and differences between the included studies.ResultsTen studies were included in the review. Three reported significant associations between chronic or widespread pain and mortality in unadjusted results. In adjusted analyses, four studies reported a significant association. The remaining studies reported no statistically significant association. A meta-analysis showed statistically significant heterogeneity of results from studies using comparable outcome measures (n?=?7)(I2?=?78.8%) and a modest but non-significant pooled estimate (MRR1.14,95%CI 0.95-1.37) for the relationship between chronic pain and all-cause mortality. This association was stronger when analysis was restricted to studies of widespread pain (n?=?5,I2?=?82.3%) MRR1.22(95%CI 0.93-1.60). The same pattern was observed with deaths from cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Heterogeneity is likely to be due to differences in study populations, follow-up time, pain phenotype, methods of analysis and use of confounding factors.ConclusionThis review showed a mildly increased risk of death in people with chronic pain, particularly from cancer. However, the small number of studies and methodological differences prevented clear conclusions from being drawn. Consistently applied definitions of chronic pain and further investigation of the role of health, lifestyle, social and psychological factors in future studies will improve understanding of the relationship between chronic pain and mortality.
| S-EPMC4047043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pancreatitis (CP) does not have diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers. CP is the end stage of a progressive inflammatory syndrome that is diagnosed at late stages by morphologic features. To diagnose earlier stages of the disease, a new mechanistic definition was established based on identifying underlying pathogenic processes and biomarker evidence of disease activity and stage. Although multiple risk factors are known, the corresponding biomarkers needed to make a highly accurate diagnosis of earlier disease stages have not been established. The goal of this study is to systematically analyze the literature to identify the most likely candidates for development into biomarkers of CP.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of candidate analytes from easily accessible biological fluids and identified 67 studies that compared CP to nonpancreatic-disease controls. We then ranked candidate biomarkers for sensitivity and specificity by area under the receiver operator curves (AUROCs).ResultsFive biomarkers had a large effect size (an AUROC > 0.96), whereas 30 biomarkers had a moderate effect size (an AUROC between 0.96 and 0.83) for distinguishing CP cases from controls or other diseases. However, the studies reviewed had marked variability in design, enrollment criteria, and biospecimen sample handling and collection.ConclusionsSeveral biomarkers have the potential for evaluation in prospective cohort studies and should be correlated with risk factors, clinical features, imaging studies and outcomes. The Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes and Pancreas Cancer provides recommendations for avoiding design biases and heterogeneity in sample collection and handling in future studies.
| S-EPMC7969447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvances in pain assessment approaches now indicate which measures should be used to capture chronic pain experiences in children and adolescents. However, there is little guidance on how these tools should best be administered and reported, such as which time frames to use or how pain scores are categorised as mild, moderate, or severe.ObjectiveTo synthesise current evidence on unidimensional, single-item pain intensity scale selection, administration, interpretation, and reporting.MethodsDatabases were searched (inception: 18 January 2016) for studies in which unidimensional pain intensity assessments were used with children and adolescents with chronic pain. Ten quality criteria were developed by modifying existing recommendations to evaluate the quality of administration of pain scales most commonly used with children.ResultsForty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest score achieved was 7 out of a possible 10 (median: 5; IQR: 4-6). Usage of scales varied markedly in administrator/completer, highest anchors, number of successive assessments, and time referent periods used.ConclusionsFindings suggest these scales are selected, administered, and interpreted inconsistently, even in studies of the same type. Furthermore, methods of administration are rarely reported or justified making it impossible to compare findings across studies. This article concludes by recommending criteria for the future reporting of paediatric chronic pain assessments in studies.
| S-EPMC5585620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acupuncture is a promising therapy for relieving symptoms in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), which affects >15% of adult men worldwide. The aim of the study was to assess the effects and safety of the use of acupuncture for CP/CPPS. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wang-Fang Database, JCRM, and CiNii were searched from their inception through 30 November 2015. Grey literature databases and websites were also searched. No language limits were applied. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with CP/CPPS treated by acupuncture were included. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools, respectively. Seven trials were included, involving 471 participants. The result of meta-analysis indicated that compared with sham acupuncture (MD: -6.09 [95%CI: -8.12 to -5.68]) and medicine (Levofloxacinand, Ibuprofen, and Tamsulosin) (MD: -4.57 [95%CI: -7.58 to -1.56]), acupuncture was more effective at decreasing the total NIH-CPSI score. Real acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture in improving symptoms (pain, voiding) and quality of life (Qof) domain subscores. Compared to sham acupuncture and medicine, acupuncture appears to be more effective at improving the global assessment. Two trials found that there is no significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in decreasing the IPSS score. Acupuncture failed to show more favorable effects in improving both symptoms and the Qof domain compared with medicine. Overall, current evidence supports acupuncture as an effective treatment for CP/CPPS-induced symptoms, particularly in relieving pain. Based on the meta-analysis, acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture in improving symptoms and Qof. Acupuncture might be similar to medicine (Levofloxacinand, Ibuprofen, and Tamsulosin) in its long-term effects, but evidence was limited due to high ROB among included trials as well as potential heterogeneity. Acupuncture is associated with rare and slightly adverse events. Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42015027522.
| S-EPMC4839929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Pain is a perception conditioned both by the subjective experience of the sufferer and their social context. A preliminary literature search suggests that, today, information about the social legitimacy of pain is scarce, although it is known that this phenomenon is an element that is closely linked to the type of pain and contributes to the sufferer's experience. Thus, our objective is to explore how the social legitimacy of pain is tackled in the scientific literature. Methods: This study is a protocol for a systematic literature review where six databases were reviewed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL, were searched for papers dealing with the social legitimacy of pain from any discipline/study design. The obtained papers will be exported to Zotero, where the duplicates will be deleted. Later, the studies of interest will be selected, first on the basis of their titles/abstracts, and, later, on the complete text. This process will be carried out in pairs. Finally, the data of interest will be extracted, analyzing their quality, to finally make a qualitative analysis of the results. Discussion: This will be the first review to systematically explore the available evidence on the social legitimacy of pain. Therefore, it will be able, not only to extend the theoretical knowledge on this phenomenon, but also to extend its visibility, which will make it possible for the social legitimacy of pain to be studied from different disciplines and fields, thus improving the way it is approached.
| S-EPMC9777939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence of neurologic involvement seen in COVID-19 infection necessitates the pooling of neurodiagnostic findings like electroencephalography (EEG) that may guide clinical management. The objective of this study was to review the EEG findings in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection through a systematic review of published articles.MethodsWe systematically searched until July 25, 2020 for published articles that reported on descriptive EEG findings in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in PUBMED by Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL by the Cochrane Library.ResultsFrom a total of 94 identified records, 29 relevant articles were included in this review. A total of 177 patients with COVID-19 with descriptive EEG reports were analyzed. The most common indication for EEG was unexplained altered mental status. Disturbances of background activity such as generalized and focal slowing were seen as well epileptiform abnormalities and rhythmic or periodic discharges. There were no consistent EEG findings specific to COVID-19 infection.ConclusionThe EEG findings in COVID-19 appear to be non-specific. Further research on the relationship of the EEG findings to the clinical state and short- or long-term prognosis of COVID-19 patients may be conducted to help clinicians discern which patients would necessitate an EEG procedure and would eventually require treatment.
| S-EPMC7490625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.MethodsPubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.ResultsThirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.
| S-EPMC2585070 | biostudies-literature