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.
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.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is a blood component therapy with a supraphysiological concentration of platelets derived from allogenic or, more commonly, autologous blood. PRP has been used in different non-transfusion indications due to its role in the promotion of tissue repair and healing, in fields such as Traumatology, Dermatology and Dentistry.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a synthesis of the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations.
METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS in July 2018 to identify systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on PRP for non-transfusion use. Two authors independently screened all retrieved references in two stages (titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts at a second stage). The methodological quality of SRs that met the eligibility criteria was appraised by AMSTAR 2. Conclusions were based on the most recent SRs with highest quality.
RESULTS: 1,240 references were retrieved. After checking the inclusion criteria, 29 SRs of RCTs related to three different fields (wound care, Orthopedics and Dentistry) were included. Results suggest benefit of PRP for different clinical situations, such as diabetic wounds, acute lesions of musculoskeletal system, rotator cuff lesions, tendinopathies, knee and hip osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, allogenic bone graft for dental implants, and periodontal intrabony defects.
CONCLUSION: There is low to moderate quality evidence supporting the efficacy of PRP for specific clinical situations. The low quality of the evidence limits the certainty of these findings. Well-planed and well-conducted RCTs are still needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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.
Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent chronic articular disease, in which pain is one of the main symptoms and the major determinant of functional loss. Several therapeutic options have been proposed, including chondroitin sulfate, but its actual usefulness has not yet been established. To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources. We identified 13 systematic reviews including 50 randomized trials overall. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether the use of chondroitin sulfate leads to an improvement in pain or functionality in osteoarthritis because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
Post-operative pain affects millions of patients worldwide and the post-operative period has high rates of morbidity and mortality. Some of this morbidity may be related to analgesics. The aim of this review was to provide an update of current knowledge of adverse events (AE) associated with the most common perioperative non-opioid analgesics: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GCCs), gabapentinoids and their combinations. The review is based on data from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of analgesic efficacy and/or adverse effects of perioperative non-opioid analgesics, and randomised trials and cohort/retrospective studies. Generally, data on AE are sparse and related to the immediate post-operative period. For paracetamol, the incidence of AEs appears trivial. Data are inconclusive regarding an association of NSAIDs with mortality, cardiovascular events, surgical bleeding and renal impairment. Anastomotic leakage may be associated with NSAID usage. No firm evidence exists for an association of NSAIDs with impaired bone healing. Single-dose GCCs were not significantly related to increased infection rates or delayed wound healing. Gabapentinoid treatment was associated with increased sedation, dizziness and visual disturbances, but the clinical relevance needs clarification. Importantly, data on AEs of combinations of the above analgesics are sparse and inconclusive. Despite the potential adverse events associated with the most commonly applied non-opioid analgesics, including their combinations, reporting of such events is sparse and confined to the immediate perioperative period. Knowledge of benefit and harm related to multimodal pain treatment is deficient and needs clarification in large trials with prolonged observation.
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.
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.
