Search

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The low quality of included trials, insufficient rigour in review methodology, ignorance of key pain issues, small size, and over-optimistic judgements about the direction and magnitude of treatment effects all devalue systematic reviews, supposedly the 'gold standard' of evidence. Available evidence indicates that almost all systematic reviews in the published literature contain fatal flaws likely to make their conclusions incorrect and misleading. Only 3 in every 100 systematic reviews are deemed to have adequate methods and be clinically useful. Examples of research waste and questionable ethical standards abound: most trials have little hope of providing useful results, and systematic review of hopeless trials inspires no confidence. We argue that results of most systematic reviews should be dismissed. Forensically critical systematic reviews are essential tools to improve the quality of trials and should be encouraged and protected.

Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management.

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

The randomised controlled trial is the foundation of clinical research; yet there is concern that many trials have flaws in design, conduct, and reporting that undermine trustworthiness. Common flaws in trials include high risk of bias, small size, outcomes irrelevant to clinical care and patient's experience, and inability to detect efficacy even if present. These flaws carry forward into systematic reviews, which can confer the label of 'high-quality evidence' on inadequate data. Trials can be futile because their flaws mean that they cannot deliver any meaningful result in that different results in a small number of patients would be sufficient to change conclusions. Some trials have been discovered to be fabricated, the number of which is growing. The fields of anaesthesia and pain have more fabricated trials than other clinical fields, possibly because of increased vigilance. This narrative review examines these themes in depth whilst acknowledging an inescapable conclusion: that much of our clinical evidence is in trouble, and special measures are needed to bolster quality and confidence.

To describe the screening and recruitment process of a randomized trial and evaluate associations with knee pain and function 3 months after total knee replacement (TKR).In order to screen for a multicenter trial, a total of 5,036 patients were sent the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaire 10 weeks post-TKR. Patients who reported pain in their replaced knee (score of ≤14 on the OKS pain component) completed a second OKS questionnaire 12 weeks post-TKR. Those patients who were still experiencing pain 12 weeks post-TKR completed a detailed questionnaire 13 weeks post-TKR. These data were used to characterize pain in a cross-sectional analysis. Multivariable regression was performed in order to identify factors associated with pain and function at 13 weeks post-TKR.We received OKS questionnaires from 3,058 of 5,063 TKR patients (60%), and 907 of the 3,058 (30%) reported pain in their replaced knee 10 weeks post-TKR. By 12 weeks, 179 of 553 patients (32%) reported improved pain (score of14 on the OKS pain component). At 13 weeks, 192 of 363 patients (53%) who completed a detailed questionnaire reported neuropathic pain, 94 of 362 (26%) reported depression symptoms, and 95 of 363 (26%) anxiety symptoms. More severe pain at 13 weeks postoperatively was associated with poorer general health, poorer physical health, more pain worry, and lower satisfaction with surgery outcome. More severe functional limitation was associated with higher levels of depression, more pain worry, lower satisfaction with surgery outcome, and higher pain acceptance.Screening after TKR identified individuals with pain. We identified several potential targets (physical and mental health outcomes, acceptance of pain, and quality of life) for tailored intervention to improve outcomes for patients. Future trials of multidisciplinary interventions warranted.

Every infant, child, and adolescent will experience pain at times throughout their life. Childhood pain ranges from acute to chronic, and includes procedural, disease-related, breakthrough, and other types of pain. Despite its ubiquity, pain is a major challenge for individuals, families, health-care professionals, and societies. As a private mental experience, pain is often hidden and can go undiscussed or ignored. Undertreated, unrecognised, or poorly managed pain in childhood leads to important and long-lasting negative consequences that continue into adulthood, including continued chronic pain, disability, and distress. This undertreatment of pain should not continue, as there are available tools, expertise, and evidence to provide better treatment for childhood pain.

Across the world, pain treatment centres have closed their doors. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers are abruptly changing their care delivery to protect patients and staff from infection and to reallocate resource towards the greatest acute needs. Elective, routine, and nonemergency casework has stopped in secondary and tertiary centres, while in primary care, patients are requested to stay away or “socially distance,” and in residential care facilities and hospices, strict isolation and separation protocols have been introduced. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and eHealth approaches were being developed and tested in a gradual fashion with many studies focusing on lessons learned and barriers to using digital solutions.3,37,39,51 Overnight, however, treating or supporting people with non-urgent and long-term conditions at a distance from healthcare providers has become imperative. These immediate changes are happening across healthcare systems. Telemedicine is being used to demand-manage the flow of patients with respiratory distress accessing emergency departments25; video consultation is being introduced in multiple settings23; and using social media is being discussed positively for its potential to direct people to trusted resources, to counteract misinformation, and to provide psychological first aid.36 Pain management providers face the challenge of delivering face-to-face service through different modes. Fortunately, there is a rich stream of research and clinical experience in the use of different technological solutions. Table ​Table11 provides a summary of the definitions and terminology in use. Table 1 Definitions and terminology used in remotely supported pain management.

How to prevent the onset, maintenance, or exacerbation of pain is a major focus of clinical pain science. Pain prevention can be distinctly organised into primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention describes avoiding hurt or pain, secondary prevention describes reducing pain when pain is unavoidable, and tertiary prevention describes preventing or reducing ongoing negative consequences such as high functional disability or distress due to chronic pain. Each poses separate challenges where unique psychological factors will play a role. In this short review article, we highlight psychological factors important to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and provide direction for the field. We present 2 case studies on secondary prevention in children and adolescents and tertiary prevention in adults with chronic pain. Finally, we provide research directions for progression in this field, highlighting the importance of clear theoretical direction, the identification of risk factors for those most likely to develop pain, and the importance of treatment.Die Frage, wie sich ein Neuauftreten von Schmerz, dessen Fortbestehen oder Verschlimmerung vermeiden lässt, ist ein Schwerpunkt der klinischen Schmerzforschung. Schmerzprävention kann klar in einen primären, sekundären und tertiären Bereich untergliedert werden. Primärprävention bedeutet die Vermeidung von Verletzung oder Schmerz, während die Sekundärprävention auf die Linderung eines unvermeidlichen Schmerzes zielt. Zuletzt beschreibt Tertiärprävention eine Vermeidung oder Reduktion bestehender negativer Folgen von chronischem Schmerz, beispielsweise einer starken Funktionseinschränkung oder psychischen Belastung. Jeder der drei Präventionsbereiche ist mit anderen Herausforderungen verbunden, wobei jeweils spezifische psychologische Faktoren eine Rolle spielen. In diesem kurzen Übersichtsbeitrag werden psychologische Faktoren mit Bedeutung in der Primär‑, Sekundär- und Tertiärprävention beleuchtet. Die Arbeit bietet einen orientierenden Überblick über den Themenbereich. Es werden zwei Fallstudien vorgestellt, eine zur Sekundärprävention bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, eine zur Tertiärprävention bei Erwachsenen mit chronischem Schmerz. Zuletzt formulieren wir einen Leitfaden, um die Forschung in diesem Bereich voranzubringen. Dabei werden drei Aspekte hervorgehoben: die Relevanz einer klaren theoretischen Ausrichtung; die Identifikation von Risikofaktoren für Personen mit höchstem Risiko der Schmerzentwicklung und die Bedeutsamkeit der Therapie.

Background/Aims Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is consistently reported to be reduced in people with inflammatory arthritis (IA), but little is known about the specific experiences of young men living with these conditions. This study seeks to address this knowledge gap and identify key aspects of the patient perspective. Methods Online semi-structured interviews with male IA patients age 16-30. Participants were recruited via online platforms and participating NHS Trusts. Data were analysed using reflective thematic analysis. Results 17 male patients (RA, JIA, PsA, AS); mean age 23 years (SD: 3.87); disease duration 7 years (SD 6.41); medication (100% on DMARDs/ biologic). Five themes are proposed: “it had a massive mental impact on me”: Psychosocial burden. Participants explicitly described the burden of IA on mental health and wellbeing (“From the diagnosis afterwards is when my mental health was really impacted”). Participants highlighted difficulties in discussing these challenges with healthcare professionals, despite a desire to do so. “I’m still quite candid about who I disclose it to”: Selective disclosure. Participants reported using caution in discussing their condition, which may be a protective mechanism for young men giving them a sense of control (“I think just as a bit of a control thing [...] I didn't want people to know everything”).“I view my arthritis as emasculating”: Disrupted and disruptive masculinity. For some, IA interfered with how they wanted to be as a man (“That kind of sums it up, just not being able to fulfil that role of sort of being the man”). Societal expectations seemed to shape their view on how they as young men should manage (“I think you're expected to manage your own feelings and your own everything and go through it [⋯] like, just man up and take it”). “You have to keep going, you have to keep the ball rolling”: Remarkable resilience. Participants expressed resilience in response to setbacks and ongoing challenges. (“I can't just sit back and cry, I need to get on with it and move on”). “It is a roller coaster, you know, you're okay one minute then you're not”: Sense of uncertainty. Participants explained IA brought uncertainty and instability into their lives, adding a layer of difficulty to planning next steps as a young adult (“It makes planning very difficult. I feel like I'm always waiting for something to happen”). Conclusion IA can influence young men’s sense of self and may interfere with their ability to navigate emerging adulthood. Some young men report IA having considerable impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Next steps will explore clinician’s perspectives on caring for this patient group to help understand how young men might be better supported Disclosure R.J. McNeil-Walsh: None. C.A. Flurey: None. F. Cramp: None. J. Robson: None. C. Eccleston: None. P.M. Galdas: None. L. Cushnie: None.

BackgroundApproximately 20% of people experience chronic pain after total knee replacement, but effective treatments are not available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement.MethodsWe did an unmasked, parallel group, pragmatic, superiority, randomised, controlled trial at eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. People with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway plus usual care, or to usual care alone. The STAR intervention aimed to identify underlying causes of chronic pain and enable onward referrals for targeted treatment through a 3-month post-surgery assessment with an extended scope practitioner and telephone follow-up over 12 months. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and pain interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales at 12 months (scored 0–10, best to worst) and analysed on an as-randomised basis. Resource use, collected from electronic hospital records and participants, was valued with UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D-5L responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361.FindingsBetween Sept 6, 2016, and May 31, 2019, 363 participants were randomly assigned to receive the intervention plus usual care (n=242) or to receive usual care alone (n=121). Participants had a median age of 67 years (IQR 61 to 73), 217 (60%) of 363 were female, and 335 (92%) were White. 313 (86%) patients provided follow-up data at 12 months after randomisation (213 assigned to the intervention plus usual care and 100 assigned to usual care alone). At 12 months, the mean between-group difference in the BPI severity score was −0·65 (95% CI −1·17 to −0·13; p=0·014) and the mean between-group difference in the BPI interference score was −0·68 (−1·29 to −0·08; p=0·026), both favouring the intervention. From an NHS and personal social services perspective, the intervention was cost-effective (greater improvement with lower cost), with an incremental net monetary benefit of £1256 (95% CI 164 to 2348) at £20 000 per QALY threshold. One adverse reaction of participant distress was reported in the intervention group.InterpretationSTAR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Chronic pain in childhood is an international public health problem. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a summary of the published evidence of pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies for children with chronic pain conditions. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception to April 2020; clinical trial registries; and other sources for randomised controlled trials or comparative observational trials. We extracted critical outcomes of pain intensity, quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, sleep, and adverse events. We assessed studies for risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 34 pharmacological (4091 participants), 25 physical therapy (1470 participants), and 63 psychological trials (5025 participants). Participants reported a range of chronic pain conditions. Most studies were assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies showed some benefit for reducing pain, posttreatment, but only physical and psychological therapies improved physical functioning. We found no benefit of any treatment modality for health-related quality of life, role functioning, emotional functioning, or sleep. Adverse events were poorly reported, particularly for psychological and physical interventions. The largest evidence base for the management of chronic pain in children supports the use of psychological therapies, followed by pharmacological and physical therapies. However, we rated most outcomes as low or very low certainty, meaning further evidence is likely to change our confidence in the estimates of effects. This protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172451).

This study investigated whether there are gender differences in attention to bodily expressions of pain and core emotions. Three experiments are reported using the attentional dot probe task. Images of men and women displaying bodily expressions, including pain, were presented. The task was used to determine whether participants’ attention was drawn towards or away from target expressions. Inconsistent evidence was found for an attentional bias towards body expressions, including pain. While these biases were affected by gender, patterns varied across the Experiments. Experiment 1, which had a presentation duration of 500 ms, found a relative bias towards the location of male body expressions compared to female expressions. Experiments 2 and 3 varied stimulus exposure times by including both shorter and longer duration conditions (e.g., 100 vs. 500 vs. 1250 ms). In these experiments, a bias towards pain was confirmed. Gender differences were also found, especially in the longer presentation conditions. Expressive body postures captured the attention of women for longer compared to men. These results are discussed in light of their implications for why there are gender differences in attention to pain, and what impact this has on pain behaviour.\ud \ud Perspective:- We show that men and women might differ in how they direct their attention towards bodily expressions, including pain. These results have relevance to understanding how carers might attend to the pain of others, as well as highlighting the wider role that social-contextual factors have in pain.

Background Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long- term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low- certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related. No studies specifically reported device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow- up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow- up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective. Authors' conclusions We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re- implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK; Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS).

Adults with chronic low back pain, disability, moderate-to-severe pain, and high fear of movement and reinjury were recruited into a trial of a novel, automated, digital therapeutics, virtual reality, psychological intervention for pain (DTxP). We conducted a 3-arm, prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial comparing DTxP with a sham placebo comparator and an open-label standard care. Participants were enrolled for 6 to 8 weeks, after which, the standard care control arm were rerandomized to receive either the DTxP or sham placebo. Forty-two participants completed assessments at baseline, immediately posttreatment (6-8 weeks), 9-week, and 5-month follow-up. We found that participants in the DTxP group reported greater reductions in fear of movement and better global impression of change when compared with sham placebo and standard care post treatment. No other group differences were noted at posttreatment or follow-up. When compared with baseline, participants in the DTxP group reported lower disability at 5-month follow-up, lower pain interference and fear of movement post treatment and follow-up, and lower pain intensity at posttreatment. The sham placebo group also reported lower disability and fear of movement at 5-month follow-up compared with baseline. Standard care did not report any significant changes. There were a number of adverse events, with one participant reporting a serious adverse event in the sham placebo, which was not related to treatment. No substantial changes in medications were noted, and participants in the DTxP group reported positive gaming experiences.

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of 7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis 7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.

The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) established a Taskforce on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia, to systematically examine the evidence on (i) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain, (ii) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) for pain, (iii) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids, as well as (iv) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the Taskforce outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Important remaining questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal and policy challenges associated with medicinal and non-medicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management.

Background This consensus statement was developed because there are concerns about the appropriate use of opioids for acute pain management, with opposing views in the literature. Consensus statement on policies for system-level interventions may help inform organisations such as management structures, government agencies and funding bodies. Methods We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey using a modified Delphi methodology focusing on policies, at the system level, rather than at the prescriber or patient level. We aimed to provide consensus statements for current developments and priorities for future developments. Results Twenty-five experts from a variety of fields with experience in acute pain management were invited to join a review panel, of whom 23 completed a modified Delphi survey of policies designed to improve the safety and quality of opioids prescribing for acute pain in the secondary care setting. Strong agreement, defined as consistent among> 75% of panellists, was observed for ten statements. Conclusions Using a modified Delphi study, we found agreement among a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representation, on prioritisation of policies for system-level interventions, to improve governance, pain management, patient/consumers care, safety and engagement.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain. We will achieve this by: assessing the efficacy of antidepressants by type, class and dose in improving pain, mood, patient global impression of change, physical functioning, sleep quality and quality of life; assessing the number of adverse events of antidepressants by type, class and dose; ranking antidepressants in the efficacy of treating pain, mood and adverse events.

ObjectiveMap the current literature investigating autonomy development, identity development, and peer relationships in young people aged 10–24 years with chronic pain.MethodsA scoping review method was used to systematically search four databases (APA PsycNET, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cinahl) for peer-reviewed articles. Search results were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure they met the objective. Eligible papers were assessed for quality, their data relating to the objective were extracted, and results are synthesized.ResultsSearches returned 3,815 papers after the removal of duplicates, with 42 papers included in the full review. The majority of papers investigated peer relationships (86%). Fewer papers investigated autonomy (43%) and identity (21%) development. Included papers were mostly quantitative (64%), with fewer qualitative (34%) and mixed-methods papers (2%). Overall, we found bidirectional relationships between chronic pain in young people, their social development, and a range of functional outcomes. However, the mechanisms underlying these relationships remain relatively unexplored.ConclusionsReview results are mapped onto the model proposed by Palermo et al. (2014). Guided by this model, clinical treatment for young people with chronic pain should consider social development. The model also sets out a future research agenda focused on exploring: (a) identity development, (b) the mechanisms underlying the relationships between social–developmental domains, pain, and outcomes, (c) a variety of participants and populations, and (d) a variety of methods, including longitudinal study designs.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Updating a core outcome set for pediatric chronic pain interventions using an accepted framework and methodology will advance care for children with chronic pain., Appropriate outcome measures and high-quality intervention trials are critical to advancing care for children with chronic pain. Our aim was to update a core outcome set for pediatric chronic pain interventions. The first phase involved collecting providers', patients', and parents' perspectives about treatment of pediatric chronic pain to understand clinically meaningful outcomes to be routinely measured. The second phase was to reach consensus of mandatory and optional outcome domains following the OMERACT framework. A modified Delphi study with 2 rounds was conducted including 3 stakeholder groups: children with chronic pain (n = 93), their parents (n = 90), and health care providers who treat youth with chronic pain (n = 52). Quantitative and qualitative data from round 1 of the Delphi study were summarized to identify important outcomes, which were condensed to a list of 10 outcome domains. Round 2 surveys were analyzed to determine the importance of the 10 domains and their relative ranking in each stakeholder group. A virtual consensus conference was held with the steering committee to reach consensus on a set of recommended outcome domains for pediatric chronic pain clinical trials. It was determined, by unanimous vote, that pain severity, pain interference with daily living, overall well-being, and adverse events, including death, would be considered mandatory domains to be assessed in all trials of any type of intervention. Emotional functioning, physical functioning, and sleep were important but optional domains. Last, the research agenda identifies several important emerging areas, including biomarkers. Future work includes selecting appropriate validated measures to assess each outcome domain.

Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain., Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Objective Up to 20% of people who undergo total knee replacement surgery have ongoing pain and discomfort. The aim of this study was to understand what role the concepts of embodiment (of both having a body and experiencing the world through one's body) and incorporation (integrating something into one's body) might have in understanding experiences of pain and discomfort after total knee replacement. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 people who had received total knee replacement at either of two National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, and who had chronic post-surgical pain (n=34, age 55-93 years). Data were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Two main themes were identified: 1) When describing chronic post-surgical pain, some participants also described sensations of discomfort including heaviness, numbness, pressure and tightness associated with the prosthesis; 2) Participants reported a lack of felt connection with and agency over their replaced knee, often describing it as alien or other, and lacked confidence in the knee. Conclusion Participants' experiences indicate that some people do not achieve full incorporation of the prosthesis. Our study emphasises the importance of physicians treating patients as whole people and moving beyond clinical and procedural ideas of "success". Our findings suggest that to optimise post-operative outcomes rehabilitation must focus not only on strengthening the joint and promoting full recovery to tasks but on modifying a person's relationship to the new joint, and managing sensations of otherness to achieve full incorporation of the joint or re-embodiment.