Search

Opinion Statement: Neuropathic cancer pain is experienced by 30-40% of patients with cancer. It significantly reduces quality of life and overall wellbeing for patients living with and beyond cancer. The underlying mechanisms of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer are complex and involve direct tumour involvement, nerve compression or infiltration, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy-induced nerve damage, or post-surgical complications. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to assess and manage neuropathic cancer pain effectively. There is increasing recognition that standardisation of neuropathic pain assessment leads to tailored management and improved patient outcomes. Pain management strategies, including medication, interventional analgesia, physical and complementary therapy, can help alleviate neuropathic pain and improve the patient's comfort and quality of life., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: A conceptual model of effective symptom management was previously developed from interviews with multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (HCP) working in English hospices. Here we aimed to answer the question; does a HCP data-derived model represent the experience of patients and carers of people with advanced cancer?, Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with six patients with advanced cancer and six carers to gain an in-depth understanding of their experience of symptom management. Analysis was based on the framework method; transcription, familiarisation, coding, applying analytical framework (conceptual model), charting, interpretation. Inductive framework analysis was used to align data with themes in the existing model. A deductive approach was also used to identify new themes., Results: The experience of patients and carers aligned with key steps of engagement, decision making, partnership and delivery in the HCP-based model. The data aligned with 18 of 23 themes. These were; Role definition and boundaries, Multidisciplinary team decision making, Availability of services/staff, Clinician-Patient relationship/rapport, Patient preferences, Patient characteristics, Quality of life versus treatment need, Staff time/burden, Psychological support -informal, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals- patients, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals-HCPs, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals- family friends, carers, Professional, service and referral factors, Continuity of care, Multidisciplinary team working, Palliative care philosophy and culture, Physical environment and facilities, Referral process and delays. Four additional patient and carer-derived themes were identified: Carer Burden, Communication, Medicines management and COVID-19. Constructs that did not align were Experience (of staff), Training (of staff), Guidelines and evidence, Psychological support (for staff) and Formal psychological support (for patients)., Conclusions: A healthcare professional-based conceptual model of effective symptom management aligned well with the experience of patients with advanced cancer and their carers. Additional domains were identified. We make four recommendations for change arising from this research. Routine appraisal and acknowledgement of carer burden, medicine management tasks and previous experience in healthcare roles; improved access to communication skills training for staff and review of patient communication needs. Further research should explore the symptom management experience of those living alone and how these people can be better supported., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: In modern Britain, palliative and end-of-life care is governed by quality standards and guidance, which should consider spiritual and psychological needs. However, there are significant gaps in provision of services which was highlighted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic where many individuals and families suffered profound spiritual and existential distress. Significant gaps remain in the provision of services to support patients with spiritual and psychological needs which can affect the management of physical symptoms. During the medieval period in Western Europe, it was important to prepare well for death throughout life. It has been suggested that lessons may be learned from medieval preparations for death which might benefit those approaching end-of-life in contemporary society. It is therefore timely to consider medieval attitudes to death and reflect on how these might inform modern end-of-life care. The objective of this review is to synthesise literature addressing modern end-of-life care in the UK and contrast this with literature on preparations for death during the medieval period in Western Europe. Our aim is to determine whether there is wisdom to be gained from history which could inform our approaches to end-of-life care today., Methods: Using online databases and broad keyword searches along with experts in the field of medieval history, we identified literature and translations of texts with a focus on preparations for death during both periods. These were narratively synthesised and discussed., Key Content and Findings: A key finding is that the medieval attitude to death was as an integral part of life, whereas in modern society death is not usually considered until the situation arises. The review highlights a need for a better understanding of the individuality of spiritual and existential needs during end-of-life care in modern society, which will vary according to individual choice, culture, societal group, religion, and belief., Conclusions: The lessons we can learn from our medieval counterparts include the need for lifelong and individual preparations for the end of life, with emphasis on spiritual needs. Alongside palliative interventions, we need to take time to appreciate what gives individuals spiritual support and provide the resources to facilitate this.

In this article, we provide a unique perspective on the use of mindfulness interventions in a whole health framework embedded within the theory of salutogenesis and the concept of painogenic environments. We argue that mindfulness is a valuable tool to bridge exploration of inner experiences of bodily pain with socio-ecological influences on thoughts and emotions. We outline research from neuroimaging studies that mindfulness techniques mediate neural processing and neuroplastic changes that alleviate pain and related symptoms. We also review evidence examining behavioural changes associated with mindfulness meditation providing evidence that it promotes self-regulatory activity, including the regulation and control of emotion and catalysation of health behaviour changes; both of which are important in chronic illness. Our viewpoint is that mindfulness could be a core element of salutogenic approaches to promote health and well-being for people living with pain because it rebuilds a fractured sense of cohesion. Mindfulness empowers people in pain to embrace their existence; shifting the focus away from pain and giving their lives meaning. We propose that integrating mindfulness into activities of daily living and individual or community-based activities will promote living well in the modern world, with or without pain; thus, promoting individual potential for fulfilment. Future research should consider the effects of mindfulness on people with pain in real-life settings, considering social, environmental, and economic factors using a broader set of outcomes, including self-efficacy, sense of coherence and quality of life., Competing Interests: In the previous 5 years, MJ has received income for expert consultancy activities from GlaxoSmithKline, TENSCare, and LifeCare Ltd. that lie outside of the submitted work. MJ declares book royalties from Oxford University Press. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Paley and Johnson.)

Background: Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease., Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)., Results: Fifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p < 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p < 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p < 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p < 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias., Conclusions: The majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness-including brief, self-administered interventions-merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies., Systematic Review Registration: This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729., (© 2023. Crown.)

Historical records provide knowledge about the way people lived in the past. Our perspective is that historical analyses of the Medieval Period provide insights to inform a fuller understanding of pain in the present era. In this article, we appraise critiques of the writings of people living with pain during the mid (high) to late Medieval Period (c. 1,000-1,500 AD) to gain insights into the nature, attitudes, lived experience, and sense-making of pain. In the Medieval Period, pain was understood in terms of Galen's four humours and the Church's doctrine of pain as a "divine gift", "punishment for sin" and/or "sacrificial offering". Many treatments for pain were precursors of those used in modern time and society considered pain to be a "shared experience". We argue that sharing personal stories of life is a fundamental human attribute to foster social cohesion, and that nowadays sharing personal stories about pain is difficult during biomedically-focussed time-constrained clinical consultations. Exploring pain through a medieval lens demonstrates the importance of sharing stories of living with pain that are flexible in meaning, so that people can connect with a sense of self and their social world. We advocate a role for community-centred approaches to support people in the creation and sharing of their personal pain stories. Contributions from non-biomedical disciplines, such as history and the arts, can inform a fuller understanding of pain and its prevention and management., Competing Interests: In the previous 5 years, MJ's employer has received income for expert consultancy activities from GlaxoSmithKline, TENSCare, and LifeCare Ltd. that lie outside of the submitted work. MJ declares book royalties from Oxford University Press. All other authors declare no conflicts of interests. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Paley, Johnson and Paley.)

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020., Eligibility Criteria for Study Selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or > 50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain., Results: The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=-0·96 (95% CI -1·14 to -0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = -0·72 (95% CI -0·95 to -0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators., Conclusion: There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019125054., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIJ (taken from ICMJE form); MIJ reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from TENSCare, other from Actegy Ltd, other from LifeCare Ltd, other from Eurocept Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Oxford University Press, outside the submitted work. MIJ was involved in conducting the following studies that were considered for inclusion in the work submitted for publication. (1) Dissanayaka TD, Pallegama RW, Suraweera HJ, Johnson MI, Kariyawasam AP. (2016). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Interferential Therapy on the Upper Trapezius in Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Study. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2016 Sep;95(9):663-72. (2) Palmer S, Domaille M, Cramp F, Walsh N, Pollock J, Kirwan J, Johnson MI. (2014) Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation as an adjunct to education and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial. Arthritis Care & Research 2014: 66(3), 387–394 – Funded by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation (part of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust) and Above & Beyond Charities. (3) Pallett EJ, Rentowl P. Johnson MI, Watson PJ (2014) Implementation fidelity of self-administered Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in patients with chronic back pain: An observational study. Clin J Pain. 2014: Mar;30(3):224-31. (4) Kolen AF, de Nijs RN, Wagemakers FM, Meier AJ, Johnson MI (2012) The effects of spatially targeted transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) using an electrode array that measures skin resistance on pain and mobility in patients with osteoarthritis in the knee: A randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2012 Feb;153(2):373-81 - Funded by Phillips Research Europe., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) to alleviate pain spans half a century. There has been no attempt to synthesise the entire body of systematic review evidence. The aim of this comprehensive review was to critically appraise the characteristics and outcomes of systematic reviews evaluating the clinical efficacy of TENS for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases for full reports of systematic reviews of studies, overviews of systematic reviews, and hybrid reviews that evaluated the efficacy of TENS for any type of clinical pain in adults. We screened reports against eligibility criteria and extracted data related to the characteristics and outcomes of the review, including effect size estimates. We conducted a descriptive analysis of extracted data. Results : We included 169 reviews consisting of eight overviews, seven hybrid reviews and 154 systematic reviews with 49 meta-analyses. A tally of authors' conclusions found a tendency toward benefits from TENS in 69/169 reviews, no benefits in 13/169 reviews, and inconclusive evidence in 87/169 reviews. Only three meta-analyses pooled sufficient data to have confidence in the effect size estimate (i.e., pooled analysis of >500 events). Lower pain intensity was found during TENS compared with control for chronic musculoskeletal pain and labour pain, and lower analgesic consumption was found post-surgery during TENS. The appraisal revealed repeated shortcomings in RCTs that have hindered confident judgements about efficacy, resulting in stagnation of evidence. Conclusions : Our appraisal reveals examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating benefit. There were no examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating no benefit. Therefore, we recommend that TENS should be considered as a treatment option. The considerable quantity of reviews with 'insufficient data' and meaningless findings have clouded the issue of efficacy. We offer solutions to these issues going forward.

Background and Objectives : It is estimated that 28 million people in the UK live with chronic pain. A biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain is recommended which combines pharmacological interventions with behavioural and non-pharmacological treatments. Acupuncture represents one of a number of non-pharmacological interventions for pain. In the current climate of difficult commissioning decisions and constantly changing national guidance, the quest for strong supporting evidence has never been more important. Although hundreds of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses have been conducted, most have been inconclusive, and this has created uncertainty in clinical policy and practice. There is a need to bring all the evidence together for different pain conditions. The aim of this review is to synthesise SRs of RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy of acupuncture to alleviate chronic pain and to consider the quality and adequacy of the evidence, including RCT design. Materials and Methods : Electronic databases were searched for English language SRs and meta-analyses on acupuncture for chronic pain. The SRs were scrutinised for methodology, risk of bias and judgement of efficacy. Results : A total of 177 reviews of acupuncture from 1989 to 2019 met our eligibility criteria. The majority of SRs found that RCTs of acupuncture had methodological shortcomings, including inadequate statistical power with a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity between RCTs was such that meta-analysis was often inappropriate. Conclusions : The large quantity of RCTs on acupuncture for chronic pain contained within systematic reviews provide evidence that is conflicting and inconclusive, due in part to recurring methodological shortcomings of RCTs. We suggest that an enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal design may overcome some of these methodological shortcomings. It is essential that the quality of evidence is improved so that healthcare providers and commissioners can make informed choices on the interventions which can legitimately be provided to patients living with chronic pain., Competing Interests: C.A.P. declares no conflict of interest. M.I.J.’s institution has received research and consultancy funding for work that he has undertaken for GlaxoSmithKline.

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults., Methods and Analysis: We intend to search electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDRO, Web of Science, AMED and SPORTDiscus) from inception to the present day to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of TENS in adults for any type of pain including acute pain, chronic pain and cancer-related pain. We will screen the RCTs against eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently undertake RCT selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be: (i) participant-reported pain relief of ≥30% expressed as frequency (dichotomous) data; and (ii) participant-reported pain intensity expressed as mean (continuous) data. We will conduct meta-analyses to determine risk ratio for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised MD for continuous data for TENS versus placebo TENS, no treatment or waiting list control, standard of care, and other treatments. Subgroup analyses will include different pain conditions (eg, acute vs chronic), TENS intensity, during versus after TENS, TENS as a sole treatment versus TENS in combination with other treatments and TENS administered as a single dose versus repetitive dose., Ethics and Dissemination: This systematic review will not use data from individual participants, and the results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at a conference., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019125054., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIJ’s institution has received research and consultancy funding for work that he has undertaken for GlaxoSmithKline., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Metabolic syndrome is defined as a cluster of at least three out of five clinical risk factors: abdominal (visceral) obesity, hypertension, elevated serum triglycerides, low serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and insulin resistance. It is estimated to affect over 20% of the global adult population. Abdominal (visceral) obesity is thought to be the predominant risk factor for metabolic syndrome and as predictions estimate that 50% of adults will be classified as obese by 2030 it is likely that metabolic syndrome will be a significant problem for health services and a drain on health economies.Evidence shows that regular and consistent exercise reduces abdominal obesity and results in favourable changes in body composition. It has therefore been suggested that exercise is a medicine in its own right and should be prescribed as such., Purpose of This Review: This review provides a summary of the current evidence on the pathophysiology of dysfunctional adipose tissue (adiposopathy). It describes the relationship of adiposopathy to metabolic syndrome and how exercise may mediate these processes, and evaluates current evidence on the clinical efficacy of exercise in the management of abdominal obesity. The review also discusses the type and dose of exercise needed for optimal improvements in health status in relation to the available evidence and considers the difficulty in achieving adherence to exercise programmes., Conclusion: There is moderate evidence supporting the use of programmes of exercise to reverse metabolic syndrome although at present the optimal dose and type of exercise is unknown. The main challenge for health care professionals is how to motivate individuals to participate and adherence to programmes of exercise used prophylactically and as a treatment for metabolic syndrome., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available., Authors' Conclusions: There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.

Introduction: The increasing prevalence of chronic pain and obesity has significant health and cost implications for economies in the developed and developing world. Evidence suggests that there is a positive correlation between obesity and chronic pain and the link between them is thought to be systemic inflammation., Objectives: The aim of this narrative review was to explore the physiological links between chronic musculoskeletal pain and obesity and to consider the potential role of regular physical activity in providing a means of managing obesity-related chronic pain., Discussion: Systemic inflammation, mechanical overload, and autonomic dysfunction are associated with increased prevalence and severity of chronic pain in individuals with obesity. It has been proposed, therefore, that interventions that target systemic inflammation could help to reduce chronic pain in obese individuals. Reduction in abdominal fat has been shown to alleviate pain and reduce the systemic markers of inflammation that contribute to chronic pain. Interventions that include exercise prescription have been shown to reduce both abdominal fat and systemic inflammation. Furthermore, exercise is also known to reduce pain perception and improve mental health and quality of life that also improves pain outcomes. However, adherence to formal exercise prescription is poor and therefore exercise programmes should be tailored to the interests, needs, and abilities of individuals to reduce attrition.

Background: Forty per cent of individuals with early or intermediate stage cancer and 90% with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and up to 70% of patients with cancer pain do not receive adequate pain relief. It has been claimed that acupuncture has a role in management of cancer pain and guidelines exist for treatment of cancer pain with acupuncture. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in Issue 1, 2011, on acupuncture for cancer pain in adults., Objectives: To evaluate efficacy of acupuncture for relief of cancer-related pain in adults., Search Methods: For this update CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and SPORTDiscus were searched up to July 2015 including non-English language papers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any type of invasive acupuncture for pain directly related to cancer in adults aged 18 years or over., Data Collection and Analysis: We planned to pool data to provide an overall measure of effect and to calculate the number needed to treat to benefit, but this was not possible due to heterogeneity. Two review authors (CP, OT) independently extracted data adding it to data extraction sheets. Data sheets were compared and discussed with a third review author (MJ) who acted as arbiter. Data analysis was conducted by CP, OT and MJ., Main Results: We included five RCTs (285 participants). Three studies were included in the original review and two more in the update. The authors of the included studies reported benefits of acupuncture in managing pancreatic cancer pain; no difference between real and sham electroacupuncture for pain associated with ovarian cancer; benefits of acupuncture over conventional medication for late stage unspecified cancer; benefits for auricular (ear) acupuncture over placebo for chronic neuropathic pain related to cancer; and no differences between conventional analgesia and acupuncture within the first 10 days of treatment for stomach carcinoma. All studies had a high risk of bias from inadequate sample size and a low risk of bias associated with random sequence generation. Only three studies had low risk of bias associated with incomplete outcome data, while two studies had low risk of bias associated with allocation concealment and one study had low risk of bias associated with inadequate blinding. The heterogeneity of methodologies, cancer populations and techniques used in the included studies precluded pooling of data and therefore meta-analysis was not carried out. A subgroup analysis on acupuncture for cancer-induced bone pain was not conducted because none of the studies made any reference to bone pain. Studies either reported that there were no adverse events as a result of treatment, or did not report adverse events at all., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to judge whether acupuncture is effective in treating cancer pain in adults.

Background: This is a second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in Issue 2, 2009. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological agent, based on delivering low voltage electrical currents to the skin. TENS is used by people to treat a variety of pain conditions., Objectives: To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS, as a sole treatment, for acute pain in adults., Search Methods: We searched the following databases up to 3 December 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; and AMED. We also checked the reference lists of included trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with acute pain (< 12 weeks) if they examined TENS given as a sole treatment and assessed pain with subjective pain scales. Trials were eligible if they compared TENS to placebo TENS, no treatment controls, pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions. We excluded trials on experimental pain, case reports, clinical observations, letters, abstracts or reviews. Also we excluded trials investigating the effect of TENS on pain during childbirth (labour), primary dysmenorrhoea or dental procedures. Studies where TENS was given with another treatment as part of the formal trial design were excluded. We did not restrict any articles based on language of publication., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and analyses of data. We extracted data on the following: types of participants and pain condition, trial design and methods, treatment parameters, adverse effects, and outcome measures. We contacted trial authors for additional information if necessary., Main Results: We included 12 trials in the original review (2009) and included no further trials in the first update (2011). An additional seven new trials met the inclusion criteria in this second update. In total, we included 19 RCTs involving 1346 participants at entry, with 11 trials awaiting classification either because the full text was unavailable or information in the full text failed to clarify eligibility. We excluded most trials because TENS was given in combination with another treatment as part of the formal study design or TENS was not delivered using appropriate TENS technique. The types of acute pain included in this Cochrane Review were procedural pain, e.g. cervical laser treatment, venepuncture, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and non-procedural pain, e.g. postpartum uterine contractions and rib fractures. We pooled data for pain intensity for six trials (seven comparisons) comparing TENS with placebo but the I(2) statistic suggested substantial heterogeneity. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 100 mm) was -24.62 mm (95% CI -31.79 to -17.46) in favour of TENS. Data for the proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in pain was pooled for four trials (seven comparisons) and relative risk was 3.91 (95% CI 2.42 to 6.32) in favour of TENS over placebo. We pooled data for pain intensity from five trials (seven comparisons) but the I(2) statistic suggested considerable heterogeneity. MD was -19.05 mm (95% CI -27.30 to -10.79) in favour of TENS using a random-effects model. It was not possible to pool other data. There was a high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions. Seven trials reported minor adverse effects, such as mild erythema and itching underneath the electrodes and participants disliking TENS sensation., Authors' Conclusions: This Cochrane Review update includes seven new trials, in addition to the 12 trials reviewed in the first update in 2011. The analysis provides tentative evidence that TENS reduces pain intensity over and above that seen with placebo (no current) TENS when administered as a stand-alone treatment for acute pain in adults. The high risk of bias associated with inadequate sample sizes in treatment arms and unsuccessful blinding of treatment interventions makes definitive conclusions impossible. There was incomplete reporting of treatment in many reports making replication of trials impossible.

Objectives: There is growing evidence from experimental studies that the acupuncture dose or technique influences the speed of onset of hypoalgesia. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of acupuncture using two or four needles on experimental contact thermal pain in healthy volunteers., Methods: Forty two participants were randomised into three groups: four-needle group (LI4, LI11, LI10, TE5), two-needle group (verum at LI4, LI11 and mock at LI10, TE5) and mock acupuncture group (LI4, LI11, LI10, TE5). Each participant rated pain intensity (visual analogue scale, VAS) to a series of noxious stimuli administered to the forearm 2°C above the heat pain threshold during needling and immediately after removal of the needles., Results: Experimentally-induced heat pain intensity (VAS) during and after the intervention was lower than pre-intervention but there were no statistically significant differences in this change between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the time taken for pain intensity to decrease by 33% from pre-intervention. However, a 33% decrease in pain intensity within 3 min of needle insertion was observed for 13 participants (92.9%) in the four-needle group compared with 66.7% of participants in the two-needle group and 57.1% in the mock acupuncture group. There was less variance in VAS in the four-needle group, suggesting more consistency in hypoalgesic response when using more needles., Conclusions: There is tentative evidence that four needles may be superior to two needles in generating rapid onset hypoalgesia. The findings suggest that further investigation is warranted., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Context: Patients with chronic cancer pain frequently suffer severe exacerbations of pain intensity which are difficult to control adequately via pharmaceutical management. Management of these episodes of breakthrough pain (BTP) presents a challenge both to the physician and the patient, and supplemental 'rescue' doses of opioids required to control BTP can produce intolerable side-effects and often do not act rapidly enough to provide adequate analgesia. There is very little evidence to support the use of acupuncture for BTP in cancer and few studies have considered the rapidity of the analgesic response to acupuncture for any type of pain. However, the available physiological evidence provides a convincing rationale and one which warrants research., Objective: The objective of this paper is to debate the available physiological evidence for a rapid analgesic response to acupuncture in the context of the needs of the patient with cancer BTP, current interventions, acupuncture technique and the practical considerations involved in administering treatment rapidly and safely., Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that acupuncture has the potential to produce rapid and effective analgesia when needles are inserted deeply enough and manipulated sufficiently. For cancer BTP this represents a possible adjunctive treatment, and consideration should be given to administering acupuncture alongside 'rescue' doses of medication to 'kick-start' the analgesic response before the medication takes effect. However, research is needed to provide evidence that acupuncture is effective for BTP in cancer, and the feasibility, practicality and safety of patients administering acupuncture themselves must also be taken into account.

Background: Patients suffering from pain due to bony metastases in cancer represent a challenge to the physiotherapist as part of the multidisciplinary team. Adequate pain relief improves quality of life and functional status, yet conventional analgesia often has undesirable side-effects and non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. some electrotherapies) may be contraindicated in cancer. Acupuncture is a potential treatment for cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) as it has few side effects and is relatively easy to administer. There is a dearth of research on the use of acupuncture in treating CIBP and some practitioners express fears about treating cancer patients with acupuncture., Objectives: To discuss the use of acupuncture for CIBP by reviewing the physiological rationale for using acupuncture to treat CIBP and the risks and benefits of using acupuncture in clinical practice., Data Sources: Evidence was identified by searching seven major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED and SPORTDiscus. Evidence was synthesised by the authors to raise issues and discussion points within a narrative review framework., Findings: Available physiological evidence supports potentially efficacious effects of acupuncture for reduction of CIBP. Clinical literature suggests that acupuncture may be effective as an adjunctive treatment for CIBP and that risks are manageable. However, there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to investigate efficacy and effectiveness in patients., Conclusions: Acupuncture has the potential to provide sustained background analgesia and/or rapid onset analgesia for breakthrough pain if the appropriate points and techniques are used., (Copyright © 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer-related pain is a significant and debilitating problem. Non-pharmacological treatments such as acupuncture may have an adjunctive role in controlling pain without the undesirable side effects of drug regimens and yet the evidence base remains limited., Objectives: The main objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of cancer-related pain in adults. Subgroup analyses were planned for acupuncture dose and for the outcome of studies investigating acupuncture for cancer-induced bone pain., Methods: Six electronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and SPORTDiscus. Studies included in the review were randomised controlled trials investigating the use of acupuncture for cancer pain using pain as a primary outcome measure. In total, 253 published references were identified but only three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review., Results: Of the three included studies, only one was judged to be of high methodological quality and showed auricular acupuncture to be superior to placebo acupuncture and ear seeds at placebo points. However, the study was relatively small and blinding was compromised. The two low-quality studies gave positive results in favour of acupuncture for cancer pain, but these results should be viewed with caution due to methodological limitations, small sample sizes, poor reporting and inadequate analysis., Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to judge whether acupuncture is effective in treating cancer pain in adults.

Background: Forty percent of individuals with early or intermediate stage cancer and 90% with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and up to 70% of patients with cancer pain do not receive adequate pain relief. It has been claimed that acupuncture has a role in management of cancer pain and guidelines exist for treatment of cancer pain with acupuncture., Objectives: To evaluate efficacy of acupuncture for relief of cancer-related pain in adults., Search Strategy: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and SPORTDiscus were searched up to November 2010 including non-English language papers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any type of invasive acupuncture for pain directly related to cancer in adults of 18 years or over., Data Collection and Analysis: It was planned to pool data to provide an overall measure of effect and to calculate the number needed to treat to benefit, but this was not possible due to heterogeneity. Two review authors (CP, OT) independently extracted data adding it to data extraction sheets. Quality scores were given to studies. Data sheets were compared and discussed with a third review author (MJ) who acted as arbiter. Data analysis was conducted by CP, OT and MJ., Main Results: Three RCTs (204 participants) were included. One high quality study investigated the effect of auricular acupuncture compared with auricular acupuncture at 'placebo' points and with non-invasive vaccaria ear seeds attached at 'placebo' points. Participants in two acupuncture groups were blinded but blinding wasn't possible in the ear seeds group because seeds were attached using tape. This may have biased results in favour of acupuncture groups. Participants in the real acupuncture group had lower pain scores at two month follow-up than either the placebo or ear seeds group.There was high risk of bias in two studies because of low methodological quality. One study comparing acupuncture with medication concluded that both methods were effective in controlling pain, although acupuncture was the most effective. The second study compared acupuncture, point-injection and medication in participants with stomach cancer. Long-term pain relief was reported for both acupuncture and point-injection compared with medication during the last 10 days of treatment. Although both studies have positive results in favour of acupuncture they should be viewed with caution due to methodological limitations, small sample sizes, poor reporting and inadequate analysis., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to judge whether acupuncture is effective in treating cancer pain in adults.

Bone pain is the most common type of pain in cancer. Bony metastases are common in advanced cancers, particularly in multiple myeloma, breast, prostate or lung cancer. Current pain-relieving strategies include the use of opioid-based analgesia, bisphosphonates and radiotherapy. Although patients experience some pain relief, these interventions may produce unacceptable side-effects which inevitably affect the quality of life. Acupuncture may represent a potentially valuable adjunct to existing strategies for pain relief and it is known to be relatively free of harmful side-effects. Although acupuncture is used in palliative care settings for all types of cancer pain the evidence-base is sparse and inconclusive and there is very little evidence to show its effectiveness in relieving cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP). The aim of this critical review is to consider the known physiological effects of acupuncture and discuss these in the context of the pathophysiology of malignant bone pain. The aim of future research should be to produce an effective protocol for treating CIBP with acupuncture based on a sound, evidence-based rationale. The physiological mechanisms presented in this review suggest that this is a realistic objective.