OBJECTIVE: To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library.
DESIGN: The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates.
RESULTS: We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.
CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.
DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.
METHODS: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.
TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation).
RECOMMENDATION 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation).
RECOMMENDATION 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to nonpharmacologic therapy, clinicians and patients should consider pharmacologic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, or tramadol or duloxetine as second-line therapy. Clinicians should only consider opioids as an option in patients who have failed the aforementioned treatments and only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks for individual patients and after a discussion of known risks and realistic benefits with patients. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
RESULTS: Of the 2,545 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 156 publications were included. Most trials enrolled patients with pain symptoms of at least moderate intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale for pain). Across interventions, pain intensity was the most commonly reported outcome, followed by back-specific function. When present, observed benefits for pain were generally in the small (5 to 10 points on a 0- to 100-point visual analog scale or 0.5 to 1.0 points on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale) to moderate (10 to 20 points) range. Effects on function were generally smaller than effects on pain; in some cases, there were positive effects on pain but no effects on function, and fewer studies measured function than pain. Benefits were mostly measured at short-term followup. For acute low back pain, evidence suggested that NSAIDs (strength of evidence [SOE]: low to moderate), skeletal muscle relaxants (SOE; moderate), opioids (SOE; low), exercise (SOE; low), and superficial heat (SOE; moderate) are more effective than placebo, no intervention, or usual care, and that acetaminophen (SOE; low) and systemic corticosteroids (SOE; low) are no more effective than placebo. For chronic low back pain, effective therapies versus placebo, sham, no treatment, usual care, or wait list are NSAIDs, opioids, tramadol, duloxetine, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, and exercise (SOE; moderate) and benzodiazepines, psychological therapies, massage, yoga, tai chi, and low-level laser therapy (SOE; low); spinal manipulation was as effective as other active interventions (SOE; moderate). Few trials evaluated the effectiveness of treatments for radicular low back pain, but the available evidence found that benzodiazepines, corticosteroids, traction, and spinal manipulation were not effective or were associated with small effects (SOE; low). Relatively few trials directly compared the effectiveness of different medications or different nonpharmacological therapies, or compared pharmacological versus nonpharmacological therapies, and they generally found no clear differences in effects. Pharmacological therapies were associated with increased risk of adverse events versus placebo (SOE; low to moderate). Trials were not designed or powered to detect serious harms from pharmacological therapies. Although rates appeared to be low and there was not an increased risk of serious harms versus placebo, this does not rule out significant risk from some treatments. For nonpharmacological therapies, assessment of harms was suboptimal, but serious harms appeared to be rare (SOE; low).
BACKGROUND: This article is the first in a series presenting the strongest published evidence for physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) to date coming from the Cochrane Collaboration. The intent of the series is to stimulate ideas for reviews and research in neglected areas of PRM.
AIM: To systematically review the rehabilitation contents of the Cochrane Collaboration on disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults.
METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched at the end of June 2013 for articles relevant for PRM about disabilities resulting from spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Retrieved papers were classified according to the PRM approach: active therapies, which require active participation by patients to achieve treatment goals, and passive treatments, which rely on the application of external forces. The quality of the reviews was checked against the AMSTAR checklist.
RESULTS: Reviews on spinal disorders or pain syndromes were found in the Cochrane Back Group (CBG) and in the Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (CPPSCG). Thirty-eight (42.8%) of 89 Cochrane reviews in the CBG and 7 (2.4%) of 293 Cochrane reviews in the CPPSCG were included. All were of high quality (range, 8-11 points out of 11 on the AMSTAR checklist). The contents of the reviews are given in detail.
CONCLUSION: This review presents an overview of the current evidence for PRM in the treatment of disabilities due to spinal disorders or pain syndromes in adults. Within PRM there is ample space for research in the Cochrane Collaboration and for producing original studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: To apply evidence-based clinical practice, clinicians must be familiar with the current best evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To update a previous report on the comparative benefits and harms of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, over-the-counter supplements (chondroitin and glucosamine), and topical agents (NSAIDs and rubefacients, including capsaicin) for osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1996–January 2011), the Cochrane Database (through fourth quarter 2010), and reference lists.
REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews that met predefined inclusion criteria. For each study, investigators abstracted details about the study population, study design, data analysis, followup, and results, and they assessed quality using predefined criteria. We assessed the overall strength of each body of evidence using predefined criteria, which included the type and number of studies; risk of bias; consistency; and precision of estimates. Meta-analyses were not performed, though pooled estimates from previously published studies were reported.
RESULTS: A total of 273 studies were included. Overall, we found no clear differences in efficacy for pain relief associated with different NSAIDs. Celecoxib was associated with a lower risk of ulcer complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76) compared to nonselective NSAIDs. Coprescribing of proton pump inhibitors, misoprostol, and H2-antagonists reduce the risk of endoscopically detected gastroduodenal ulcers compared to placebo in persons prescribed NSAIDs. Celecoxib and most nonselective, nonaspirin NSAIDs appeared to be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular (CV) harms. There was no clear association between longer duration of NSAID use or higher doses and increased risk of serious CV harms. There were no clear differences between glucosamine or chondroitin and oral NSAIDs for pain or function, though evidence from a systematic review of higher-quality trials suggests that glucosamine had some very small benefits over placebo for pain. Head-to-head trials showed no difference between topical and oral NSAIDs for efficacy in patients with localized osteoarthritis, lower risk of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, and higher risk of dermatological adverse events, but serious GI and CV harms were not evaluated. No head-to-head trials compared topical salicylates or capsaicin to oral NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the analgesics evaluated in this report was associated with a unique set of risks and benefits. Choosing the optimal analgesic for an individual with osteoarthritis requires careful consideration and thorough discussion of the relevant tradeoffs.
OBJECTIVES: Our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database.
CONCLUSIONS: Now CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.
BACKGROUND: Medications are the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain. A challenge in choosing pharmacologic therapy is that each class of medication is associated with a unique balance of risks and benefits. PURPOSE: To assess benefits and harms of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, tramadol, and systemic corticosteroids for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews and randomized trials of dual therapy or monotherapy with 1 or more of the preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found good evidence that NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief. The magnitude of benefit was moderate (effect size of 0.5 to 0.8, improvement of 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, or relative risk of 1.25 to 2.00 for the proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant pain relief), except in the case of tricyclic antidepressants (for which the benefit was small to moderate). We also found fair evidence that opioids, tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin (for radiculopathy) are effective for pain relief. We found good evidence that systemic corticosteroids are ineffective. Adverse events, such as sedation, varied by medication, although reliable data on serious and long-term harms are sparse. Most trials were short term (< or =4 weeks). Few data address efficacy of dual-medication therapy compared with monotherapy, or beneficial effects on functional outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Medications with good evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain). Evidence is insufficient to identify one medication as offering a clear overall net advantage because of complex tradeoffs between benefits and harms. Individual patients are likely to differ in how they weigh potential benefits, harms, and costs of various medications.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to determine how effective different classes of analgesic agents are in the management of chronic pain.
METHODOLOGY: The literature search identified five systematic reviews and 18 randomized controlled trials to provide evidence about systemic drug treatment for chronic pain.
RESULTS: Studies in the systematic reviews were mainly of low back pain, and studies in the randomized controlled trials were mainly of fibromyalgia. Other studies investigated of rheumatic pain, musculoskeletal pain, chronic low back pain, and temporomandibular pain. Classes of analgesic agents reviewed were antidepressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, and a number of miscellaneous agents.
CONCLUSIONS: For chronic pain, opioid analgesics provide benefit for up to 9 weeks (level 2). For chronic low back pain, the evidence shows that various types of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are equally effective or ineffective, and that antidepressants provide no benefit in the short to intermediate term (level 2). Muscle relaxants showed limited effectiveness (level 3) for chronic neck pain and for chronic low back pain for up to 4 weeks. For fibromyalgia, there is limited evidence (level 3) of the effectiveness of amitryptiline, ondansetron, zoldipem, or growth hormone, and evidence of no effectiveness for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, malic acid with magnesium, calcitonin injections, or s-adenyl-L-methionine. For temporomandibular pain, oral sumatriptan is not effective (level 2). The remaining evidence was inadequate (level 4a) or contradictory (level 4b).
To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library.
DESIGN:
The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates.
RESULTS:
We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low.
CONCLUSIONS:
Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.
