Dataset Information

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared with sham (placebo) procedures.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. Randomized controlled trials comparing invasive procedures with identical but otherwise sham procedures for chronic pain conditions were selected. Three authors independently extracted and described study characteristics and assessed Cochrane risk of bias. Two subsets of data on back and knee pain, respectively, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall quality of the literature was assessed through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

Results

Twenty-five trials (2,000 participants) were included in the review assessing the effect of invasive procedures over sham. Conditions included low back (N?=?7 trials), arthritis (4), angina (4), abdominal pain (3), endometriosis (3), biliary colic (2), and migraine (2). Thirteen trials (52%) reported an adequate concealment of allocation. Fourteen studies (56%) reported on adverse events. Of these, the risk of any adverse event was significantly higher for invasive procedures (12%) than sham procedures (4%; risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.09, P?=?0.01, I2 = 65%). In the two meta-analysis subsets, the standardized mean difference for reduction of low back pain in seven studies (N?=?445) was 0.18 (95% CI = -0.14 to 0.51, P?=?0.26, I2 = 62%), and for knee pain in three studies (N?=?496) it was 0.04 (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.19, P?=?0.63, I2 = 36%). The relative contribution of within-group improvement in sham treatments accounted for 87% of the effect compared with active treatment across all conditions.

Conclusions

There is little evidence for the specific efficacy beyond sham for invasive procedures in chronic pain. A moderate amount of evidence does not support the use of invasive procedures as compared with sham procedures for patients with chronic back or knee pain. Given their high cost and safety concerns, more rigorous studies are required before invasive procedures are routinely used for patients with chronic pain.

SUBMITTER: Jonas WB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6611529 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review.

Jonas Wayne B WB Crawford Cindy C Colloca Luana L Kriston Levente L Linde Klaus K Moseley Bruce B Meissner Karin K

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20190701 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared with sham (placebo) procedures.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review with meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. Randomized controlled trials comparing invasive procedures with identical but otherwise s ...[more]

PMID: 30204920

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for relieving pain and improving function. Features of perioperative care may be associated with the adverse event of chronic pain 6 months or longer after surgery; effects may be direct, for example, through nerve damage or surgical complications, or indirect through adverse events. This systematic review aims to evaluate whether non-surgical perioperative interventions prevent long-term pain after TKR. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of perioperative interventions for adults with osteoarthritis receiving primary TKR evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL until February 2018. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles. Studies at low risk of bias according to the Cochrane tool were included. INTERVENTIONS:Perioperative non-surgical interventions; control receiving no intervention or alternative treatment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain or score with pain component assessed at 6 months or longer postoperative. RESULTS:44 RCTs at low risk of bias assessed long-term pain. Intervention heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and definitive statements on effectiveness. Good-quality research provided generally weak evidence for small reductions in long-term pain with local infiltration analgesia (three studies), ketamine infusion (one study), pregabalin (one study) and supported early discharge (one study) compared with no intervention. For electric muscle stimulation (two studies), anabolic steroids (one study) and walking training (one study) there was a suggestion of more clinically important benefit. No concerns relating to long-term adverse events were reported. For a range of treatments there was no evidence linking them with unfavourable pain outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:To prevent chronic pain after TKR, several perioperative interventions show benefits and merit further research. Good-quality studies assessing long-term pain after perioperative interventions are feasible and necessary to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis achieve good long-term outcomes after TKR.

Project description:BackgroundThere is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.MethodsA systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.ResultsOf 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.ConclusionsPeer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

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.

Project description:IntroductionLusutrombopag is an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO-RA). Clinical trials have shown lusutrombopag's efficacy in reducing need for preoperative platelet transfusion in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and severe thrombocytopenia. This analysis assessed efficacy and safety of lusutrombopag in patients with severe thrombocytopenia and CLD undergoing planned invasive procedures.MethodsAn electronic database search (through 1 December 2020) identified three randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials comparing lusutrombopag with placebo in patients with CLD and platelet count below 50 × 109/L scheduled to undergo a procedure with a perioperative bleeding risk. A random-effects meta-analysis examined treatment effect, with Cochrane Collaboration's tool assessing risk of bias.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 343 (lusutrombopag 3 mg, n = 173; placebo, n = 170) patients. More patients met the criteria for treatment response (platelet count at least 50 × 109/L and increase of at least 20 × 109/L from baseline anytime during the study) with lusutrombopag versus placebo (risk ratio [RR] 6.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69, 11.07; p < 0.0001). The primary efficacy outcome, proportion of patients requiring no platelet transfusion and no rescue therapy for bleeding for at least 7 days post procedure, was achieved by more patients treated with lusutrombopag versus placebo (RR 3.42; 95% CI 1.86, 6.26; p = 0.0001). The risk of any bleeding event was significantly lower with lusutrombopag compared to placebo (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32, 0.95; p = 0.03); conversely, thrombosis event rates were similar between lusutrombopag and placebo (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.19, 3.24; p = 0.74).ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that treatment of severe thrombocytopenia with lusutrombopag in patients with CLD prior to a planned invasive procedure was efficacious and safe in increasing platelet counts, avoiding the need for platelet transfusions, and reducing risk of bleeding, thereby enhancing the certainty of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of lusutrombopag.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review.

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets