Search

Background: The prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain remains unclear due to the heterogeneity of study samples and definitions of depression. We aimed to identify sources of variation in the prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain and generate clinical prediction models to estimate the probability of depression among individuals with chronic pain. Methods: Participants were from the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was a "lifetime" history of depression. The model's performance was evaluated using discrimination (optimism-corrected C statistic) and calibration (calibration plot). Results: Analyses included 24,405 patients with chronic pain (mean age 64.1 years). Among participants with chronic widespread pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 45.7% and varied (25.0–66.7%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.66; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, socioeconomic status, gender, history of asthma, history of heart failure, and history of peripheral artery disease. Among participants with chronic regional pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 30.2% and varied (21.4–70.6%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.65; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, gender, nature of pain, smoking status, regular opioid use, history of asthma, pain location that bothers you most, and BMI. Conclusions: There was substantial variability in the prevalence of depression among patients with chronic pain. Clinically relevant factors were selected to develop prediction models. Clinicians can use these models to assess patients' treatment needs. These predictors are convenient to collect during daily practice, making it easy for busy clinicians to use them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonheading Chinese cabbage is an important leafy vegetable, and quantitative identification and automated analysis of nonheading Chinese cabbage leaves are crucial for cultivating new varieties with higher quality, yield, and resistance. Traditional leaf phenotypic analysis relies mainly on phenotypic observation and the practical experience of breeders, leading to issues such as time consumption, labor intensity, and low precision, which result in low breeding efficiency. Considering these issues, a method for the extraction and analysis of phenotypes of nonheading Chinese cabbage leaves is proposed, targeting four qualitative traits and ten quantitative traits from 1500 samples, by integrating deep learning and OpenCV image processing technology. First, a leaf classification model is trained using YOLOv8 to infer the qualitative traits of the leaves, followed by the extraction and calculation of the quantitative traits of the leaves using OpenCV image processing technology. The results indicate that the model achieved an average accuracy of 95.25%, an average precision of 96.09%, an average recall rate of 96.31%, and an average F1 score of 0.9620 for the four qualitative traits. From the ten quantitative traits, the OpenCV-calculated values for the whole leaf length, leaf width, and total leaf area were compared with manually measured values, showing RMSEs of 0.19 cm, 0.1762 cm, and 0.2161 cm2, respectively. Bland–Altman analysis indicated that the error values were all within the 95% confidence intervals, and the average detection time per image was 269 ms. This method achieved good results in the extraction of phenotypic traits from nonheading Chinese cabbage leaves, significantly reducing the personpower and time costs associated with genetic resource analysis. This approach provides a new technique for the analysis of nonheading Chinese cabbage genetic resources that is high-throughput, precise, and automated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) − 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4 to −2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD − 4.7, 95% CI − 8.3 to − 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD − 15.1, 95% CI − 18.5 to − 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD − 11.7, 95% CI − 19.2 to − 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD − 6.8, 95% CI − 12.7 to −0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.Methods: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) − 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4 to −2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD − 4.7, 95% CI − 8.3 to − 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD − 15.1, 95% CI − 18.5 to − 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD − 11.7, 95% CI − 19.2 to − 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD − 6.8, 95% CI − 12.7 to −0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.Results: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) − 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4 to −2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD − 4.7, 95% CI − 8.3 to − 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD − 15.1, 95% CI − 18.5 to − 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD − 11.7, 95% CI − 19.2 to − 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD − 6.8, 95% CI − 12.7 to −0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.Conclusions: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) − 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4 to −2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD − 4.7, 95% CI − 8.3 to − 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD − 15.1, 95% CI − 18.5 to − 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD − 11.7, 95% CI − 19.2 to − 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD − 6.8, 95% CI − 12.7 to −0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]