Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine (Part I): guidelines for preparing the review protocol

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool.

FINDINGS

Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023431155.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Part I): Guidelines for Preparing the Review Protocol

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Efficacy and safety of add-on mirogabalin to conventional therapy for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain after thoracic surgery: the multicenter, randomized, open-label ADMIT-NeP study

BACKGROUND

For chronic pain after thoracic surgery, optimal timing of its diagnosis and effective treatment remains unresolved, although several treatment options are currently available. We examined the efficacy and safety of mirogabalin, in combination with conventional pain therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or acetaminophen), for treating peripheral neuropathic pain (NeP) after thoracic surgery.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study, patients with peripheral NeP were randomly assigned 1:1 to mirogabalin as add-on to conventional therapy or conventional treatment alone.

RESULTS

Of 131 patients of consent obtained, 128 were randomized (mirogabalin add-on group, 63 patients; conventional treatment group, 65 patients). The least squares mean changes (95% confidence interval [CI]) in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for pain intensity at rest from baseline to Week 8 (primary endpoint) were - 51.3 (- 54.9, - 47.7) mm in the mirogabalin add-on group and - 47.7 (- 51.2, - 44.2) mm in the conventional group (between-group difference: - 3.6 [95% CI: - 8.7, 1.5], P = 0.161). However, in patients with Self-administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) score (used for the screening of NeP) ≥ 12 at baseline, the greater the S-LANSS score at baseline, the greater the decrease in VAS score in the mirogabalin add-on group, while no such trend was observed in the conventional treatment group (post hoc analysis). This between-group difference in trends was statistically significant (interaction P value = 0.014). Chronic pain was recorded in 7.9% vs. 16.9% of patients (P = 0.171) at Week 12 in the mirogabalin add-on vs. conventional treatment groups, respectively. Regarding activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL), changes in Pain Disability Assessment Scale score and the EQ-5D-5L index value from baseline to Week 8 showed significant improvement in the mirogabalin add-on group vs. conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). The most common adverse events (AEs) in the mirogabalin add-on group were dizziness (12.7%), somnolence (7.9%), and urticaria (3.2%). Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of mirogabalin to conventional therapy did not result in significant improvement in pain intensity based on VAS scores, but did result in significant improvement in ADL and QOL in patients with peripheral NeP after thoracic surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071200053 (registered 17/11/2020).

Flawed, futile, and fabricated-features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review

The randomised controlled trial is the foundation of clinical research; yet there is concern that many trials have flaws in design, conduct, and reporting that undermine trustworthiness. Common flaws in trials include high risk of bias, small size, outcomes irrelevant to clinical care and patient's experience, and inability to detect efficacy even if present. These flaws carry forward into systematic reviews, which can confer the label of 'high-quality evidence' on inadequate data. Trials can be futile because their flaws mean that they cannot deliver any meaningful result in that different results in a small number of patients would be sufficient to change conclusions. Some trials have been discovered to be fabricated, the number of which is growing. The fields of anaesthesia and pain have more fabricated trials than other clinical fields, possibly because of increased vigilance. This narrative review examines these themes in depth whilst acknowledging an inescapable conclusion: that much of our clinical evidence is in trouble, and special measures are needed to bolster quality and confidence.

Chronic pain after colon cancer surgery: Translation and validation of a scoring system

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to translate and validate the chronic pain score (CP score) in a cohort of colon cancer patients. Chronic pain following colon cancer surgery is still poorly understood, in particular the lack of a validated tool for measuring chronic pain is a major issue as such an instrument is critical for evaluating the incidence and risk factors. The CP score was created using data from Danish rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Danish colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed between 2001 and 2014 completed the CP score and two quality of life (QoL) measures. Clinical data were obtained from a national database. Convergent validity was investigated by testing the association of the CP score with a single ad hoc QoL item and the EORTC QLQ-C30, and discriminative validity was tested as the score's ability to differentiate between gender and age groups. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated by determining the ability of the score to identify patients with a major impact of pain on QoL.

RESULTS

Responses from 7127 colon cancer were included. Convergent validity was confirmed, as the score was associated with both QoL measures (p < 0.001). Moreover, the score could differentiate between males/females and older/younger patients (p < 0.001, respectively), reflecting high discriminative validity. Finally, the score was able to identify patients with a major impact on QoL, with a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 82%.

CONCLUSION

The CP score is a valid tool for measuring chronic pain after colon cancer surgery and should be used to homogenize outcomes in future studies.

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in occupational medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. Methods: Papers edited between 2014 and 2021 in the 14 open access journals with the highest impact were assessed for their quality. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they were published in English. Results: The study included 335 studies. Among these, 149 were meta-analyses and 186 were systematic reviews. The values of the AMSTAR-2 score range between three and fourteen with a mean value of 9.85 (SD = 2.37). The factors that significantly and directly associate to a higher AMSTAR-2 score were impact factor (p = 0.003), number of consulted research databases (p = 0.011), declaration of PRISMA statement (p = 0.003), year of publication (p < 0.001) and performing a meta-analysis (p < 0.001).The R² values from the multivariate analysis showed that the AMSTAR-2 score could be predicted by the inclusion of these parameters by up to 23%. Conclusions: This study suggests a quality assessment methodology that could help readers in a fast identification of good systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Future studies should analyze more journals without applying language restrictions and consider a wider range of years of publication in order to give a more robust evidence for results.