Is Ultrasound Guidance Advantageous for Interventional Pain Management? A Systematic Review of Chronic Pain Outcomes

2013 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 236-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuj Bhatia ◽  
Richard Brull
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ultrasound Guidance ◽  
Pain Outcomes ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Use of multidomain management strategies by community dwelling adults with chronic pain: evidence from a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Axon ◽  
Mira J. Patel ◽  
Jennifer R. Martin ◽  
Marion K. Slack
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Outcomes

AbstractBackground and aimsMultidomain strategies (i.e. two or more strategies) for managing chronic pain are recommended to avoid excessive use of opioids while producing the best outcomes possible. The aims of this systematic review were to: 1) determine if patient-reported pain management is consistent with the use of multidomain strategies; and 2) identify the role of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patient-reported pain management.MethodsBibliographic databases, websites, and reference lists of included studies were searched to identify published articles reporting community-based surveys of pain self-management from January 1989 to June 2017 using controlled vocabulary (and synonyms): pain; self-care; self-management; self-treatment; and adult. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on subject demographics, pain characteristics, pain self-management strategies, and pain outcomes. Pain self-management strategies were organized according to our conceptual model. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Differences between the researchers were resolved by consensus.ResultsFrom the 3,235 unique records identified, 18 studies published between 2002 and 2017 from 10 countries were included. Twenty-two types of pharmacological strategies were identified (16 prescription, six non-prescription). NSAIDs (15 studies, range of use 10–72%) and opioids (12 studies, range of use 5–72%) were the most commonly reported prescription pharmacological strategies. Other prescription pharmacological strategies included analgesics, acetaminophen, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, anxiolytics, salicylates, β-blockers and calcium channel blockers, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and steroids, muscle relaxants, topical products, triptans, and others. Twenty-two types of non-pharmacological strategies were identified: four medical strategies (10 studies), 10 physical strategies (15 studies), four psychological strategies (12 studies), and four self-initiated strategies (15 studies). Medical strategies included consulting a medical practitioner, chiropractic, and surgery. Physical strategies included exercise, massage, hot and cold modalities, acupuncture, physical therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, activity modification or restriction, assistive devices, and altering body position/posture. Psychological strategies included relaxation, prayer or meditation, therapy, and rest/sleep. Self-initiated strategies included dietary or herbal supplements, dietary modifications, and complementary and alternative medicine. Overall, the number of strategies reported among the studies ranged from five to 28 (out of 44 identified strategies). Limited data on pain outcomes was reported in 15 studies, and included satisfaction with pain management strategies, pain interference on daily activities, adverse events, lost work or restricted activity days, emergency department visits, and disabilities.ConclusionsA wide variety and large number of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies to manage chronic pain were reported, consistent with the use of multidomain strategies. High levels of use of both NSAIDs and opioids also were reported.ImplicationsComprehensive review and consultation with patients about their pain management strategies is likely needed for optimal outcomes. Additional research is needed to determine: how many, when, and why multidomain strategies are used; the relationship between opioid use, multidomain management strategies, and level of pain; how multidomain strategies relate to outcomes; and if adding strategies to a pain management plan increases the risk of adverse events or interactions, and increases an individuals pain management burden.

scholarly journals Teaming In Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions In Primary Care: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karleen F. Giannitrapani ◽  
Natalie B. Connell ◽  
Sophia N. Zupanc ◽  
Pallavi Prathivadi ◽  
Sara J. Singer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Outcomes ◽  
Interdisciplinary Interventions

Abstract BackgroundPatients with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain often struggle with physical, emotional, and psychological problems not easily addressed by a single clinician. Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aim to describe how we intend to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. Methods We will include randomized studies and systematic reviews of interventions involving teaming that address chronic or cancer-related pain. A systematic review of articles published in English and after 2009 in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library will be conducted. The primary outcome will be a numeric, patient-reported pain score. Extracted data will include details about the team structures and processes used in the interdisciplinary interventions based in primary care. DiscussionThe intended systematic review will examine interventions that incorporate teamwork or teaming to manage chronic pain and will synthesize evidence as to which team structures and processes may help facilitate improved pain management, and thus improved pain outcomes. Results of this systematic review may help inform how to organize teams within primary care that will be most beneficial to chronic pain patients and highlight opportunities for future, high-quality randomized controlled trials exploring teaming models in primary care.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO #CRD42020191467

Monoterpenes as Perspective to Chronic Pain Management: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 960-972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Nascimento Gouveia ◽  
Lícia Tairiny Santos Pina ◽  
Thallita Kelly Rabelo ◽  
Wagner Barbosa da Rocha Santos ◽  
Jullyana Souza Siqueira Quintans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Chronic Pain Management

scholarly journals The Prevalence and Severity of Chronic Pain in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205435812199399
Author(s):  
Sara N. Davison ◽  
Sarah Rathwell ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Chelsy George ◽  
Ted Pfister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Chronic Pain Management ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
The Mean

Background: Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be advancing sufficiently to address the issue of chronic pain management in patients with CKD. Objectives: To determine the prevalence and severity of chronic pain in patients with CKD. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Interventional and observational studies presenting data from 2000 or later. Exclusion criteria included acute kidney injury or studies that limited the study population to a specific cause, symptom, and/or comorbidity. Patients: Adults with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) category 3 to 5 CKD including dialysis patients and those managed conservatively without dialysis. Measurements: Data extracted included title, first author, design, country, year of data collection, publication year, mean age, stage of CKD, prevalence of pain, and severity of pain. Methods: Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, last searched on February 3, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, assessed potentially relevant articles, and extracted data. We estimated pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain, musculoskeletal pain, bone/joint pain, muscle pain/soreness, and neuropathic pain and the I2 statistic was computed to measure heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to account for variations in study design and sample populations and a double arcsine transformation was used in the model calculations to account for potential overweighting of studies reporting either very high or very low prevalence measurements. Pain severity scores were calibrated to a score out of 10, to compare across studies. Weighted mean severity scores and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results: Sixty-eight studies representing 16 558 patients from 26 countries were included. The mean prevalence of chronic pain in hemodialysis patients was 60.5%, and the mean prevalence of moderate or severe pain was 43.6%. Although limited, pain prevalence data for peritoneal dialysis patients (35.9%), those managed conservatively without dialysis (59.8%), those following withdrawal of dialysis (39.2%), and patients with earlier GFR category of CKD (61.2%) suggest similarly high prevalence rates. Limitations: Studies lacked a consistent approach to defining the chronicity and nature of pain. There was also variability in the measures used to determine pain severity, limiting the ability to compare findings across populations. Furthermore, most studies reported mean severity scores for the entire cohort, rather than reporting the prevalence (numerator and denominator) for each of the pain severity categories (mild, moderate, and severe). Mean severity scores for a population do not allow for “responder analyses” nor allow for an understanding of clinically relevant pain. Conclusions: Chronic pain is common and often severe across diverse CKD populations providing a strong imperative to establish chronic pain management as a clinical and research priority. Future research needs to move toward a better understanding of the determinants of chronic pain and to evaluating the effectiveness of pain management strategies with particular attention to the patient outcomes such as overall symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life. The current variability in the outcome measures used to assess pain limits the ability to pool data or make comparisons among studies, which will hinder future evaluations of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments. Recommendations for measuring and reporting pain in future CKD studies are provided. Trial registration: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020166965

Pharmacist‐led intervention on chronic pain management: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parbati Thapa ◽  
Shaun Wen Huey Lee ◽  
Bhuvan KC ◽  
Juman Abdulelah Dujaili ◽  
Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Pain Management

scholarly journals Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document