scholarly journals Clinical important improvement of chronic pain patients in Randomized Controlled Trials and the DATA PAIN cohort

Pain Practice ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Waardenburg ◽  
Nelleke de Meij ◽  
Brigitte Brouwer ◽  
Jan Van Zundert ◽  
Sander MJ van Kuijk
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Important Improvement ◽  
Chronic Pain Patients ◽  
Pain Patients

scholarly journals Total extraperitoneal (TEP) versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernioplasty: systematic review and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hernia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Aiolfi ◽  
Marta Cavalli ◽  
Simona Del Ferraro ◽  
Livia Manfredini ◽  
Francesca Lombardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Transabdominal Preperitoneal ◽  
Tapp Repair

Abstract Purpose To examine the updated evidence on safety, effectiveness, and outcomes of the totally extraperitoneal (TEP) versus the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair and to explore the timely tendency variations favoring one treatment over another. Methods Systematic review and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were consulted. Risk Ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Results Fifteen RCTs were included (1359 patients). Of these, 702 (51.6%) underwent TAPP and 657 (48.4%) TEP repair. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 92 years and 87.9% were males. The estimated pooled RR for hernia recurrence (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.35–1.96) and chronic pain (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 0.54–4.22) were similar for TEP vs. TAPP. The TSA shows a cumulative z-curve without crossing the monitoring boundaries line (Z = 1.96), thus supporting true negative results while the information size was calculated as adequate for both outcomes. No significant differences were found in term of early postoperative pain, operative time, wound-related complications, hospital length of stay, return to work/daily activities, and costs. Conclusions TEP and TAPP repair seems comparable in terms of postoperative hernia recurrence and chronic pain. The cumulative evidence and information size are sufficient to provide a conclusive evidence on recurrence and chronic pain. Similar trials or meta-analyses seem unlikely to show diverse results and should be discouraged.

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS OF CHRONIC PAIN IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. e1.66-e1
Author(s):  
Rym Boulkedid ◽  
Armiya Yousouf Abdou ◽  
Emilie Desselas ◽  
Marlène Monegat ◽  
Corinne Alberti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Recurrent Pain ◽  
Pharmacological Agents ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundApproximately 15 to 30% of children and adolescents suffer from daily pain persistent over more than 3 months and there is evidence supporting that the prevalence of chronic pain is steadily increasing in this population. Chronic pain is known to have a negative impact on children's development and social behaviour, leading often to severe psychological distress and physical disability. We reviewed medical literature to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in chronic and recurrent pain in the paediatric population.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to March 2014. Bibliographies of relevant articles were also hand-searched. We included all RCTs that involved children and adolescents (age 0 to 18 years) and evaluated the use of a pharmacological agent or a non-pharmacological approach in the context of chronic or recurrent pain. The latter was defined as pain persisting for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated methodological quality.ResultsA total of 52 randomized controlled trials were selected and included in the analysis. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 45 (34–57) participants. Almost 50% of the RCTs included both adults and children with a median age at inclusion of 13 years. Non-pharmacological approaches were more commonly tested whereas evaluation of pharmacological agents concerned less than 30% of RCTs. Abdominal pain and headache were the most common types of chronic pain experienced among trial participants. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and did not parallel the number of RCTs that increased over the years. The risk of bias was high or unclear in 70% of the trials.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of RCTs conducted to evaluate pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Although, management of pain in adults has significantly improved over the years due to the evaluation of numerous analgesic therapies, our results highlight the existing knowledge gap with regards to children and adolescents. Therapeutic strategies, in particular pharmacological agents, applied to relieve chronic or recurrent pain in children and adolescents are not evaluated through high quality RCTs. The need to improve analgesic therapy in children and adolescents with chronic pain is still unmet. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges related to this fact as well as adequate methodologies to circumvent them.

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/22821 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e22821
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background Chronic 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. Objective This 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. Methods We 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. Results Ethics 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. Conclusions This 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 Registration International 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

scholarly journals Is Saline Injection a True Sham/Placebo Treatment in Randomized Controlled Trials? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Nagy Mekhail ◽  
Nagy Mekhail ◽  
Youssef Saweris ◽  
Lou-Anne Acevedo-Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Saline Solution ◽  
Local Anaesthetics ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Chronic Pain Management ◽  
Saline Injection ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective: To explore whether saline is a real sham/placebo agent, or it has potential therapeutic effects when used as control treatment in randomized controlled trials for the management of discogenic low back pain. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted investigating the effects of saline as a placebo in the treatment of chronic pain when administered into the intervertebral disc. Following stepwise filtering, selected articles were assessed for their levels of evidence, followed by a discussion of their contribution to the understanding of the role of saline in chronic pain management. Results: Out of 95 articles that described the administration of intradiscal saline solution used as a placebo for chronic pain management, 8 articles met all of the inclusion criteria. Their levels of evidence ranged from 1a to 4 (Oxford Centre CEBM). Intradiscal administration of saline solution was found to have measurable therapeutic benefits. In some studies, the pain relief was similar to that provided by local anaesthetics and steroids. Conclusion: Although the exact mechanism of the analgesic effects of saline is not clear, yet the use of intradiscal saline appears to have some analgesic benefits like local anaesthetics and steroids when used individually. Researchers should practice caution when designing RCTs using intradiscal saline injection as a sham/placebo treatment for the control arm or maybe, when possible, avoid the use of intradiscal saline injection as a sham treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document