Dataset Information

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

Results

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

Conclusion

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

SUBMITTER: Babatunde OO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5480856 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimSystematic identification, characterization and analysis of recommendations concerning the diagnosis and treatment of non-specific low back pain (LBP) in primary care provided in international evidence-based guidelines from high-income countries.BackgroundLBP is one of the most common reasons for consulting a primary care physician and its prevalence is higher in high-income than in middle- or low-income countries. The majority of LBP is non-specific and treatment recommendations are not often based on high-quality and patient-oriented evidence.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and major guideline databases from 2013 to 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature selection and the quality assessment of included guidelines using the AGREE II tool. We extracted all relevant recommendations including the corresponding Grade of Recommendation. We grouped all included recommendations by topic and compared them to each other.FindingsThis overview includes 10 current guidelines and overall 549 relevant recommendations. Recommendations covered aspects of assessment and diagnosis (15%), non-pharmacological interventions (46%), pharmacological interventions (26%), invasive treatments (8%) and multimodal pain management (5%). In total, 30% of all recommendations were strong and 57% weak or very weak. The proportion of recommendations for and against an intervention was 45% and 38%, respectively. The recommendations from the different guidelines were largely in good agreement. We identify only a small number of contradictory recommendations, mostly dealing with very specific interventions.ConclusionIn conclusion, current evidence-based guidelines published in high-income countries provide recommendations for all major aspects of the management of people with LBP in primary care. Recommendations from different guidelines were largely consistent. More than 50% of these recommendations were weak or very weak and a high proportion of recommendation advised against an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundWhile an extensive array of existing evidence-based practices (EBPs) have the potential to improve patient outcomes, little is known about how to implement EBPs on a larger scale. Therefore, we sought to identify effective strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: (i) study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, before-and-after (with/without control), and interrupted time series; (ii) participants: primary care-related units (e.g., clinical sites, patients); (iii) intervention: any strategy used to scale up an EBP; (iv) comparator: no restrictions; and (v) outcomes: no restrictions. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to August 2016 and consulted clinical trial registries and gray literature. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, then extracted and analyzed data following the Cochrane methodology. We extracted components of scaling-up strategies and classified them into five categories: infrastructure, policy/regulation, financial, human resources-related, and patient involvement. We extracted scaling-up process outcomes, such as coverage, and provider/patient outcomes. We validated data extraction with study authors.ResultsWe included 14 studies. They were published since 2003 and primarily conducted in low-/middle-income countries (n = 11). Most were funded by governmental organizations (n = 8). The clinical area most represented was infectious diseases (HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, n = 8), followed by newborn/child care (n = 4), depression (n = 1), and preventing seniors' falls (n = 1). Study designs were mostly before-and-after (without control, n = 8). The most frequently targeted unit of scaling up was the clinical site (n = 11). The component of a scaling-up strategy most frequently mentioned was human resource-related (n = 12). All studies reported patient/provider outcomes. Three studies reported scaling-up coverage, but no study quantitatively reported achieving a coverage of 80% in combination with a favorable impact.ConclusionsWe found few studies assessing strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care settings. It is uncertain whether any strategies were effective as most studies focused more on patient/provider outcomes and less on scaling-up process outcomes. Minimal consensus on the metrics of scaling up are needed for assessing the scaling up of EBPs in primary care.Trial registrationThis review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041461 .

Project description:BackgroundAs a first step in developing a framework to evaluate and improve the quality of care of children in primary care there is a need to identify the evidence base underpinning interventions relevant to child health. Our objective was to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to the management of childhood conditions in primary care and to assess the extent to which Cochrane reviews reflect the burden of childhood illness presenting in primary care.Methodology/principal findingsWe used the Cochrane Child Health Field register of child-relevant systematic reviews to complete an overview of Cochrane reviews related to the management of children in primary care. We compared the proportion of systematic reviews with the proportion of consultations in Australia, US, Dutch and UK general practice in children. We identified 396 relevant systematic reviews; 358 included primary studies on children while 251 undertook a meta-analysis. Most reviews (n = 218, 55%) focused on chronic conditions and over half (n = 216, 57%) evaluated drug interventions. Since 2000, the percentage of pediatric primary care relevant reviews only increased by 2% (7% to 9%) compared to 18% (10% to 28%) in all child relevant reviews. Almost a quarter of reviews (n = 78, 23%) were published on asthma treatments which only account for 3-5% of consultations. Conversely, 15-23% of consultations are due to skin conditions yet they represent only 7% (n = 23) of reviews.Conclusions/significanceAlthough Cochrane systematic reviews focus on clinical trials and do not provide a comprehensive picture of the evidence base underpinning the management of children in primary care, the mismatch between the focus of the published research and the focus of clinical activity is striking. Clinical trials are an important component of the evidence base and the lack of trial evidence to demonstrate intervention effectiveness in substantial areas of primary care for children should be addressed.