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

Effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy for chronic spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in reducing disability and pain compared to other interventions in chronic spinal pain patients.

METHODS

Five databases were queried to October 2023 for retrieving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including patients with chronic spinal pain and administering CFT. Primary outcomes were disability and pain. Secondary outcomes included psychological factors, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0), and evidence certainty (GRADE approach). Random-effect models were used for meta-analyses. Clinical relevance was assessed with the smallest worthwhile effect.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (N = 1228) for chronic low back pain (CLBP), one (N = 72) for chronic neck pain (CNP) were included. Compared to other conservative interventions, CFT may reduce disability (MD: -9.41; 95%CI: -12.56, -6.27) and pain (MD: -1.59; 95%CI: -2.33, -0.85 for CLBP) at short-term follow-up with probable to possible clinical relevance in CLBP and with low and very low evidence certainty, respectively. Similar results, with larger effect sizes, were observed for CFT compared to any unstructured or unsupervised minimal care treatments. Efficacy persisted in longer-term follow-ups, except for comparison with other conservative interventions. The CNP study showed positive results for CFT. Evidence certainty was low to very low. Sparse evidence was found for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

CFT may offer clinically relevant benefits for CLBP, although the evidence remains mainly of low to very low certainty. Well-conducted studies, particularly in CNP and other spinal pain conditions are needed to strengthen these findings.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023482667.

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.

Human versus artificial intelligence: evaluating ChatGPT's performance in conducting published systematic reviews with meta-analysis in chronic pain research

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large-language models like Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has demonstrated potential in streamlining research methodologies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, often considered the pinnacle of evidence-based medicine, are inherently time-intensive and demand meticulous planning, rigorous data extraction, thorough analysis, and careful synthesis. Despite promising applications of AI, its utility in conducting systematic reviews with meta-analysis remains unclear. This study evaluated ChatGPT's accuracy in conducting key tasks of a systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

This validation study used data from a published meta-analysis on emotional functioning after spinal cord stimulation. ChatGPT-4o performed title/abstract screening, full-text study selection, and data pooling for this systematic review with meta-analysis. Comparisons were made against human-executed steps, which were considered the gold standard. Outcomes of interest included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for screening and full-text review tasks. We also assessed for discrepancies in pooled effect estimates and forest plot generation.

RESULTS

For title and abstract screening, ChatGPT achieved an accuracy of 70.4%, sensitivity of 54.9%, and specificity of 80.1%. In the full-text screening phase, accuracy was 68.4%, sensitivity 75.6%, and specificity 66.8%. ChatGPT successfully pooled data for five forest plots, achieving 100% accuracy in calculating pooled mean differences, 95% CIs, and heterogeneity estimates (I2 score and tau-squared values) for most outcomes, with minor discrepancies in tau-squared values (range 0.01-0.05). Forest plots showed no significant discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT demonstrates modest to moderate accuracy in screening and study selection tasks, but performs well in data pooling and meta-analytic calculations. These findings underscore the potential of AI to augment systematic review methodologies, while also emphasizing the need for human oversight to ensure accuracy and integrity in research workflows.

Global Burden of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in At-Risk Populations: Estimates of Prevalence From 35 Countries Between 1993 and 2023

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating and painful condition accompanied by sensory, autonomic, trophic, and/or motor abnormalities. Although CRPS is rare in the general population, the prevalence among individuals at higher risk, particularly posttraumatic and postsurgical patients, remains unknown. This study aims to provide a benchmark that quantifies CRPS prevalence in high-risk groups, and offers insights on potential predictors of developing CRPS.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify studies reporting prevalence of CRPS after an inciting event (eg, fracture, surgery), specifically 12-month and 24-month prevalence (primary outcomes), as well as 3-month and 6-month prevalence (secondary outcomes). Estimates from individual studies were transformed using double-arcsine transformation, and the resulting estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 214 articles with data from 2491,378 participants worldwide (35 countries), of which 16,873 had CRPS. The pooled 12-month and 24-month global prevalence was 3.04% (95% CI, 2.64-3.48) and 6.46% (95% CI, 5.46-7.53), respectively. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to understand the impact of population-dependent (mechanism of injury, type of CRPS), contextual-dependent (socioeconomic status), and methodological-dependent (study design, publication year) factors. The 12-month prevalence was higher in countries with a high human development index (HDI) compared to those with a medium or very high HDI, was higher in participants with a traumatic inciting injury only versus those with surgical injury only or traumatic/surgical injury, and was higher in prospective versus retrospective studies. Meta-regression analysis showed that publication year was a significant moderator, with more recent articles reporting lower 12-month prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a benchmark of the global prevalence of CRPS, which anesthesiologists and pain specialists can use to prioritize early diagnosis and identify those at the highest risk for CRPS.

Evaluating the utility of large language models in generating search strings for systematic reviews in anesthesiology: a comparative analysis of top-ranked journals

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT 4o and a custom-designed model, Meta-Analysis Librarian, in generating accurate search strings for systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of anesthesiology.

METHODS

We selected 85 SRs from the top 10 anesthesiology journals, according to Web of Science rankings, and extracted reference lists as benchmarks. Using study titles as input, we generated four search strings per SR: three with ChatGPT 4o using general prompts and one with the Meta-Analysis Librarian model, which follows a structured, Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome-based approach aligned with Cochrane Handbook standards. Each search string was used to query PubMed, and the retrieved results were compared with the PubMed retrieved studies from the original search string in each SR to assess retrieval accuracy. Statistical analysis compared the performance of each model.

RESULTS

Original search strings demonstrated superior performance with a 65% (IQR: 43%-81%) retrieval rate, which was statistically different from both LLM groups in PubMed retrieved studies (p=0.001). The Meta-Analysis Librarian achieved a superior median retrieval rate to ChatGPT 4o (median, (IQR); 24% (13%-38%) vs 6% (0%-14%), respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study highlight the significant advantage of using original search strings over LLM-generated search strings in PubMed retrieval studies. The Meta-Analysis Librarian demonstrated notable superiority in retrieval performance compared with ChatGPT 4o. Further research is needed to assess the broader applicability of LLM-generated search strings, especially across multiple databases.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Regenerative Medicine Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Consensus Report from a Multispecialty Working Group

Purpose

Injectable biologics have not only been described and developed to treat dermal wounds, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but have also been reported to treat chronic pain conditions. Despite emerging evidence supporting regenerative medicine therapy for pain, many aspects remain controversial.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the educational need for an evidence-based guideline on regenerative medicine therapy for chronic pain. The executive board nominated experts spanning multiple specialties including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and sports medicine based on expertise, publications, research, and clinical practice. A steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were reviewed and refined. Evidence was appraised using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence level and degree of recommendation. Using a modified Delphi approach, consensus points were distributed to all collaborators and each collaborator voted on each point. If collaborators provided a decision of "disagree" or "abstain", they were invited to provide a rationale in a non-blinded fashion to the committee chair, who incorporated the respective comments and distributed revised versions to the committee until consensus was achieved.

Results

Sixteen questions were selected for guideline development. Questions that were addressed included type of injectable biologics and mechanism, evidence in treating chronic pain indications (eg, tendinopathy, muscular pathology, osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disease, neuropathic pain), role in surgical augmentation, dosing, comparative efficacy between injectable biologics, peri-procedural practices to optimize therapeutic response and quality of injectate, federal regulations, and complications with mitigating strategies.

Conclusion

In well-selected individuals with certain chronic pain indications, use of injectable biologics may provide superior analgesia, functionality, and/or quality of life compared to conventional medical management or placebo. Future high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted with implementation of minimum reporting standards, standardization of preparation protocols, investigation of dose-response associations, and comparative analysis between different injectable biologics.

Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers

Well-established guidelines and checklists for authors, reviewers, and readers of systematic reviews and scoping reviews are readily available. However, the availability of such for narrative reviews is lacking, including, but not limited to, field-specific guidelines in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. In this brief article, we review the differences between the major types of reviews, followed by a more detailed description of narrative reviews that clearly differentiates them from other types of reviews. We include a recommended checklist that will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews as well as examples specific to the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. It is the hope that the guidelines recommended here will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine, including Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Adherence to such should help differentiate between narrative reviews and other types of reviews as well as provide consistency in what elements are necessary to include in a narrative review in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine.

Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided neuraxial puncture: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Data suggest that preprocedural ultrasound may improve the efficacy of central neuraxial puncture. However, it remains uncertain whether these findings can be extended to various clinical scenarios, including diverse patient populations and the application of real-time ultrasound guidance. Additionally, it is unclear whether ultrasound-guided techniques improve safety and patient-centered outcomes.

METHODS

We searched six databases for randomized trials of adult patients undergoing neuraxial puncture, comparing real-time ultrasound, preprocedural ultrasound, and landmark palpation for efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes. Our primary outcome was a failed first-attempt neuraxial puncture. After two-person screening and data extraction, meta-analyses were conducted and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Analysis of 71 studies involving 7153 patients, both real-time ultrasound (OR 0.30; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.15 to 0.58; low certainty) and preprocedural ultrasound (OR 0.33; 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.44; moderate certainty) showed a significant reduction in the risk of a failed first neuraxial puncture. Real-time ultrasound had the best performance for preventing first-attempt failures (low certainty evidence). Although real-time ultrasound was also the leading method for reducing the risk of complete neuraxial puncture failure, the results did not show a statistically significant difference when compared with landmark palpation. Preprocedural ultrasound, however, significantly reduced the odds of complete puncture failure (OR 0.29; 95% CrI 0.11 to 0.61). These ultrasound-guided approaches also contributed to a reduction in certain complications and increased patient satisfaction without any other significant differences in additional outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed that sufficient information was achieved for our primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture improves efficacy, reduces puncture attempts and needle redirections, reduces complication risks, and increases patient satisfaction, with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Despite real-time ultrasound's high ranking, a clear superiority over preprocedural ultrasound is not established. These results could prompt anesthesiologists and other clinicians to reassess their neuraxial puncture techniques.