BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.
METHODS: We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181). There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities.
DESIGN: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review.
RESULTS: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review.
CONCLUSION: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.
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).
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies may be used as a non-pharmacological approach to chronic pain management. While hundreds of trials about individual CAM modality have been conducted, a comprehensive overview of their results is currently lacking for pain clinicians and researchers.
AIM: This umbrella review synthesized the quality of meta-analytic evidence supporting the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CAM therapies for the management of chronic pain.
MATERIALS & METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched from October 1991 to November 2016. Reviews of clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) with meta-analysis investigating the utility of any CAM modality for chronic pain were eligible. Pain relief post-intervention was the main outcome and secondary outcomes included patients' adherence and incidence of adverse effects during CAM protocol.
RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews (207 clinical trials, >12,000 participants) about 18 CAM modalities, falling under natural products, mind and body practices or other complementary health approaches were included. Inhaled cannabis, graded motor imagery, and Compound Kushen injection (a form of Chinese medicine) were found the most efficient (with moderate-to-high effect sizes and low heterogeneity) and tolerable (≥80% of adherence to study protocols) for chronic pain relief. When reported, adverse effects related to these CAM were minor.
CONCLUSION: Although several CAM were found effective for chronic pain relief, it remains unclear when these modalities are a reasonable choice against or in conjunction with mainstream treatments. In that sense, future research with a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of CAM overall efficacy and patient adherence/tolerance 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).
Acupuncture and related therapies such as moxibustion and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are often used to manage cancer-related symptoms, but their effectiveness and safety are controversial. We conducted this overview to summarise the evidence on acupuncture for palliative care of cancer. Our systematic review synthesised the results from clinical trials of patients with any type of cancer. The methodological quality of the 23 systematic reviews in this overview, assessed using the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Instrument, was found to be satisfactory. There is evidence for the therapeutic effects of acupuncture for the management of cancer-related fatigue, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and leucopenia in patients with cancer. There is conflicting evidence regarding the treatment of cancer-related pain, hot flashes and hiccups, and improving patients' quality of life. The available evidence is currently insufficient to support or refute the potential of acupuncture and related therapies in the management of xerostomia, dyspnea and lymphedema and in the improvement of psychological well-being. No serious adverse effects were reported in any study. Because acupuncture appears to be relatively safe, it could be considered as a complementary form of palliative care for cancer, especially for clinical problems for which conventional care options are limited.
BACKGROUND: Physical and psychological job demands in combination with the degree of control a worker has over task completion, play an important role in reducing stress. Occupational stress is an important, modifiable factor affecting work disability. However, the effectiveness of reducing job demands or increasing job control remains unclear, particularly for outcomes of interest to employers, such as absenteeism or productivity.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review reports on job demand and control interventions that impact absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes.
METHODS: A stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis was conducted with researcher and stakeholder collaboration throughout. Databases and grey literature were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, TRIP, health-evidence.ca, Rehab+, National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and Institute for Work and Health. Articles were assessed independently by two researchers for inclusion criteria and methodological quality. Differences were resolved through consensus.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 unique titles. After review of abstracts, 115 articles were retained for full-text review. 11 articles finally met the inclusion criteria and are summarized in this synthesis. The best level of evidence we found indicates that multimodal job demand reductions for either at-work or off-work workers will reduce disability-related absenteeism.
CONCLUSION: In general, the impacts of interventions that aim to reduce job demands or increase job control can be positive for the organization in terms of reducing absenteeism, increasing productivity and cost-effectiveness. However, more high quality research is needed to further assess the relationships and quantify effect sizes for the interventions and outcomes reviewed in this study.
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.
OBJECTIVES:
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.
METHODS:
We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181). There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.
