BACKGROUND: Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS: We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS: All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
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.
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).
• The approach taken to evaluate the current published scientific evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness and economic consequences of multidisciplinary pain programs (MPPs) for patients with chronic pain (CP) not related to cancer, was to analyze and synthesize the findings from systematic reviews (SRs) including meta-analyses. Given the cost and consequences of CP, whether MPPs are therapeutically and financially effective are important issues of consideration.
• MPPs in this report are defined as being a comprehensive approach that involves coordinated interventions among a variety of disciplines working together in the same facility in an integrated way with joint goals and with ongoing communication. The patient is considered to be an active participant who assumes significant responsibility within the rehabilitation process with the staff playing a teaching and consulting role.
• The rationale for MPPs as a therapeutic approach is to provide simultaneous assessment and management of somatic, behavioural and psychosocial components of CP. MPPs aim to improve quality of life outcomes, to increase patient independence and to restore physical, psychological, social, and occupational functioning.
• Treatment strategies available at MPPs usually vary from centre to centre in terms of the setting (inpatient versus outpatient), number of hours and days involved, and type, intensity, and nature of treatment modalities offered. Patients seen at MPPs
are often not representative of all those with CP and alternatively, not all CP patients should attend MPPs. As tertiary centres, MPPs are generally selected for patients with complex and long-standing pain problems.
• From the twelve SRs on the effectiveness of MPPs, five met the inclusion criteria. Four of these SRs focused on MPPs as the primary intervention of interest, whereas one SR considered MPPs among several other interventions.
• The results from a recent good quality SR tend to support the effectiveness of intensive MPPs for chronic low back pain patients in terms of their effects on functional improvement and pain reduction. The results from one clinical trial included in one of the SRs support the use of MPPs in patients with chronic pelvic pain in terms of daily activity level and self-rating scales.
• The other SRs found limited evidence and therefore the findings were considered to be inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of MPPs in managing CP in other conditions such as fibromyalgia and widespread musculoskeletal pain, and shoulder
and neck pain.
Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS:
We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS:
All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS:
Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
