Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials

Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).

SETTINGS

Labor.

PATIENTS

Pregnant patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.

The Impact of Ketorolac Utilization on Outcomes for Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Ketorolac is one of the most potent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly used in spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of ketorolac utilization with or without other medications on a patient's postoperative course after lumbar surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science in July 2023. Inclusion criteria were RCTs that used ketorolac for lumbar surgery.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included (N = 997; mean age, 54.6 ± 7.8 years; n = 535 in the ketorolac group) in this systematic review. There was no significant difference in the 24-hour and total postoperative morphine utilization (P = 0.185 and P = 0.109, respectively), 24-hour and final postoperative pain scores (0-10 scale) (P = 0.065 and P = 0.582, respectively), and length of stay at the hospital (P = 0.990) between patients in the ketorolac group and patients in the non-ketorolac group who underwent lumbar surgery. Overall, patients had similar rates of major complications (3.7% vs. 5.4%) and minor complications (42.1% vs. 51.7%) between groups after lumbar surgery. However, patients in the ketorolac group had a significantly lower rate of nausea and/or vomiting compared with the non-ketorolac group after lumbar surgery (21.6% vs. 37.1%, respectively; P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in 24-hour and total postoperative morphine utilization, pain scores, or length of stay, with similar complication rates after lumbar surgery between patients receiving ketorolac and patients not receiving ketorolac via meta-analysis of RCTs.

The level of agreement between the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale for assessing pain intensity in adults with chronic pain

The numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale are used to quantify pain intensity. However, it has not yet been explored whether these scores are interchangeable in adults with chronic pain. Data from the prospective multicentre cross-sectional INTERVAL study were used to evaluate the one-dimensionality and agreement between numerical rating scale scores and visual analogue scale scores in adults with chronic pain. Pain intensity scores using the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale were provided by 366 patients with chronic pain for current, average, minimal and maximal pain. To evaluate whether pain intensity scales are completed in accordance with each other, the proportion of patients who satisfied the following condition was calculated: minimal pain intensity ≤ maximal pain intensity. A factor analysis confirmed the one-dimensionality of the pain measures. A significant difference was found between numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale scores for average, current, minimum and maximum pain. Intra-class correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.739 to 0.858 and all measures failed to show sufficient and acceptable agreement at the 95% level. The strength of agreement between pain severity categories was classified as 'moderate' for average and minimal pain and 'substantial' for current and maximal pain. The proportion of patients who scored minimal pain ≤ maximal pain was 97.5% for the numerical rating scale and 89.5% for the visual analogue scale. This study failed to show an acceptable agreement between the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale when pain intensity was rated by adults with chronic pain, despite showing both scales measure the same information.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Orthopedic Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) appears to alleviate chronic pain via a brain-down mechanism. Although several review studies have examined the effects of tDCS on patients with chronic pain, no systematic review or meta-analysis has comprehensively analyzed the effects of tDCS on chronic orthopedic joint pain in one study. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS for pain reduction in chronic orthopedic patients; (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) was performed. Only randomized controlled trials that compared tDCS with a control intervention were included. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified four categories of chronic orthopedic pain: knee (k = 8), lower back (k = 7), shoulder (k = 2), and orofacial pain (k = 1). Random effect models were utilized, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted in the presence of significant heterogeneity. Studies within each pain condition were further classified according to the number of treatment sessions: 1-5 sessions, 6-10 sessions, and >10 sessions.; (3) Results: Significant reductions in chronic orthopedic joint pain were observed following tDCS compared to controls for knee (g = 0.59, p = 0.005), lower back (g = 1.14, p = 0.005), and shoulder (g = 1.17, p = 0.020). Subgroup analyses showed pain reductions after 6-10 tDCS sessions for knee pain and after 1-5 and >10 sessions for lower back pain; (4) Conclusions: tDCS could be considered a potential stand-alone or supplemental therapy for chronic knee and lower back pain. The effectiveness of tDCS treatment varies depending on the number of treatment sessions. Our findings suggest the importance of implementing individualized treatment plans when considering tDCS for chronic pain conditions.

The Uptake of the Core Outcome Set for Non-Specific Low Back Pain Clinical Trials is Poor: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Trial Registrations

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials; 2) assess the uptake of the core outcome measurement set for NSLBP in clinical trials; and 3) determine whether specific study characteristics are associated with the COS uptake. After applying the relevant filters for the condition, study type, and phase of the trial, 240 registry entries were included in this study. Only 50 (20.8%) entries showed a full COS uptake, and this rate did not increase over time. Most registry entries that planned to measure physical functioning (n = 152) used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (n = 74; 48.7%); a small percentage used the numeric rating scale (n = 60; 27.3%) or Short Form-12 (n = 5; 8.3%) if they planned to measure pain intensity (n = 220) or health-related quality of life (n = 60), respectively. Only the planned sample size (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) showed a significant but small association with COS uptake. The uptake of the COS for NSLBP is poor. Only 21% of the randomized controlled trials aimed to measure all COS domains in their study registration and COS uptake is not increased over time. Great heterogeneity in measurement instruments was also observed, revealing poor core outcome measurement set uptake. PERSPECTIVE: The Core Outcome Set (COS) for non-specific low back pain was published more than 20 years ago. We evaluated whether trial registrations are using this set of outcomes when testing interventions for low back pain. Full uptake was found only in 21% of the sample, and this is not increasing over time. Researchers should use the COS to ensure that trials measure relevant outcomes consistently.

Bias in the measurement of the outcome is associated with effect sizes in randomized clinical trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the relationships between the risk of bias and treatment effect estimates for exercise therapy interventions on pain intensity and physical functioning outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study of the 230 RCTs (31,674 participants) in the 2021 'Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain' Cochrane Review were included. Study design characteristics, sample size, prospective trial registration, flowchart information, interventions, and comparisons were extracted. Independent pairs of reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

The metaregression included 220 (pain intensity) and 203 (physical functioning) effect sizes. Unadjusted and adjusted metaregression models showed no significant associations between the bias domains and pain intensity effect sizes. Only domain 'bias in the measurement of the outcome' was significantly associated with physical functioning (standardized mean difference: -0.40, 95% confidence interval: -0.77 to -0.02) when adjusted for flowchart reported (yes/no), prospective trial registration, sample size, and comparator type.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome could lead to slight overestimates of the effect size for physical functioning. Clinicians should consider this when they read and assess RCT results in this field. We encourage metaresearchers to replicate our findings using a consistent approach for evaluating the risk of bias (i.e., the RoB 2 tool) in other musculoskeletal conditions and interventions to investigate their generalizability.

The Efficacy of Graded Motor Imagery and Its Components on Phantom Limb Pain and Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) is a non-invasive and inexpensive therapy used to treat Phantom Limb Pain (PLP) by sequentially activating motor networks in such a way that movement and pain are unpaired. The objective of this systematic review was to critically appraise relevant data on the efficacy of GMI and its components for reducing PLP and disability in amputees.

Methods

We searched 11 electronic databases for controlled trials investigating GMI and its components in amputees with PLP from inception until February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted relevant data. Study-level data were entered using the inverse variance function of the Review Manager 5 and pooled with the random effects model.

Results

Eleven studies with varying risk of bias were eligible. No eligible study considered left/right judgement tasks in isolation. Studies showed no effect for imagined movements, but positive effects were seen for GMI [weighted mean difference: -21.29 (95%CI: -31.55, -11.02), I2= 0%] and mirror therapy [weighted mean difference: -8.55 (95%CI: -14.74, -2.35, I2= 61%]. A comparison of mirror therapy versus sham showed no difference [weighted mean difference: -4.43 (95%CI: -16.03, 7.16), I2= 51%].

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that GMI and mirror therapy may be effective for reducing PLP. However, this conclusion was drawn from a limited body of evidence, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, rigorous, high-quality trials are needed to address the gap in the literature and inform practice.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.