Peripheral magnetic stimulation for chronic peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review of the literature on the effects of peripheral magnetic stimulation (PMS) in the treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest was conducted from inception to July 2023 to identify studies of any design published in English language that enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) that received PMS for treatment of a chronic peripheral neuropathic pain disorder (pain > 3 months). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified which included 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five case series, two case reports, and one non-randomized trial. PMS regimens varied across studies and ranged from 5 to 240 min per session over 1 day to 1 year of treatment. Results across included studies were mixed, with some studies suggesting benefits while others showing no significant differences. Of nine placebo-controlled RCTs, four reported statistically significant findings in favor of PMS use. In the meta-analysis, PMS significantly reduced pain scores compared to control within 0-1 month of use (mean difference -1.64 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale, 95% confidence interval -2.73 to -0.56, p = 0.003, I2 = 94%, 7 studies [264 participants], very low quality of evidence), but not at the 1-3 months and >3 months of PMS use (very low and low quality of evidence, respectively). Minimal to no adverse effects were reported with PMS use. DISCUSSION: There is limited and low-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on PMS usage, however, the available data is encouraging, especially for short-term applications of this novel modality. Large high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish definitive efficacy and safety effects of PMS.

Undergraduate Learners' Receptiveness to Feedback in Medical Schools: A Scoping Review.

Feedback from educators to learners is considered an important element of effective learning in medical school. While early studies were focused on the processes of providing feedback, recent work has showed that factors related to how learners receive feedback seems to be equally important. Considering that the literature on this topic is new in medical education, and studies are diverse and methodologically variable, we sought to conduct a scoping review to map the articles on receptiveness to feedback, to provide an overview of its related factors, to identify the types of research conducted in this area, and to document knowledge gaps in the existing literature. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, we searched four databases (CINAHL, Ovid, PubMed, and Web of Science) and screened 9120 abstracts, resulting in 98 articles for our final analysis. In this sample, 80% of studies on the feedback receiver were published in the last 10 years, and there is a vast variation in the studies' methodologies. The main factors that affect medical students' receptiveness to feedback are students' characteristics, feedback content, educators' credibility, and the learning environment. Feedback literacy is a very recent and rarely used term in medical education; therefore, an important area for further investigation. Lastly, we identified some gaps in the literature that might guide future research, such as studying receptiveness to feedback based on academic seniority and feedback literacy's long-term impacts on learning. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01858-0.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors as adjuncts for postoperative pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as adjuncts for postoperative pain management. METHODS: We searched seven databases and two trial registers from inception to February 2021 for RCTs that compared SSRIs or SNRIs with placebo or an active control for postoperative pain management. RESULTS: We included 24 RCTs with 2197 surgical patients (21 trials for SNRIs and three trials for SSRIs). Moderate-quality evidence found that, compared with placebo, SSRIs/SNRIs (majority SNRIs) significantly reduced postoperative pain within 6 h {weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.04 to -0.42)}, 12 h (-0.68 cm [-1.28 to -0.07]), 24 h (-0.68 cm [-1.16 to -0.20]), 48 h (-0.73 cm [-1.22 to -0.23]), 10 days to 1 month (-0.71 cm [-1.11 to -0.31]), 3 months (-0.64 cm [-1.05 to -0.22]), and 6 months (-0.95 cm [-1.64 to -0.25]), and opioid consumption within 24 h (WMD -12 mg [95% CI: -16 to -8]) and 48 h (-10 mg [-15 to -5]), and improved patient satisfaction (WMD 0.49 point on a 1-4 Likert scale [95% CI: 0.09 to 0.89]) without significant increase in adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors tended to be less effective despite non-significant subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS: Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors as an adjunct to standard perioperative care probably provide small reduction in both acute and chronic postoperative pain and opioid consumption, and small improvement in patient satisfaction without increases in adverse events. The effects of SSRIs are inconclusive because of very limited evidence.