How is postoperative pain after hip and knee replacement managed? An analysis of two large hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. RESULTS: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3-77.9). CONCLUSION: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol.

General practitioners' decision-making process to prescribe pain medicines for low back pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP. DESIGN: Qualitative study with in-depth interviews. SETTING: Australian primary care. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes. DATA ANALYSIS: We summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making. RESULTS: GPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

How do people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs. SETTING: We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: 2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to: bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation emphasised that treatment is needed for recovery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Participants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses. RESULTS: 1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed. Guideline-based advice (vs treatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements. Treatment recommendation (vs guideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Words/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why guideline-based advice reduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to a treatment recommendation.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months). RESULTS: 24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)). CONCLUSION: Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework. RESULTS: 26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Racial and ethnic differences in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics and spinal surgery for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial gap between evidence and clinical care for low back pain (LBP) worldwide despite recommendations of best practice specified in clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to identify disparities associated with race or ethnicity in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery in people with LBP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We included observational studies which compared the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery for the management of non-serious LBP between people from different racial/ethnic populations. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from January 2000 to June 2021. Risk of bias of included studies was appraised in six domains. For each type of care, we pooled data stratified by race and ethnicity using random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible studies; all conducted in the United States. Hispanic/Latino (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.96) and Black/African American (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.46-0.75) people with LBP were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics than White people. Black/African Americans were less likely to undergo or be recommended spinal surgery for LBP (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33-0.67) than White people. There was a lack of high certainty evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in the use of lumbar imaging. CONCLUSION: This review reveals lower rate of the use of guideline-discordant care, especially opioid prescription and spinal surgery, in racial/ethnic minority populations with LBP in the United States. Future studies in other countries evaluating care equity for LBP are warranted. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021260668. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that people with low back pain from the minority racial/ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics and undergo spinal surgery than the majority counterparts. Strategic interventions to improve the access to, and the value of, clinical care for minority populations with low back pain are warranted.

The environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health care has significant environmental impact. We performed a scoping review to map what is known about the environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We included published papers of any design that measured or discussed environmental impact of health care or health support services for any musculoskeletal condition in terms of climate change or global warming (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions it produces). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 2 May 2022 using keywords for environmental health and musculoskeletal conditions, and performed keyword searches using Google and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened studies. One author independently charted data, verified by a second author. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of 12,302 publications screened and 73 identified from other searches, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 49 were included (published 1994 to 2022). Of 24 original research studies, 11 measured environmental impact relating to climate change in orthopaedics (n = 10), and medical aids for the knee (n = 1), one measured energy expenditure of laminar versus turbulent airflow ventilation systems in operating rooms during simulated hip replacements and 12 measured waste associated with orthopaedic surgery but did not relate waste to greenhouse gas emissions or environmental effects. Twenty-one editorials described a need to reduce environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 9), podiatry (n = 2) or occupational therapy (n = 1). Four narrative reviews discussed sustainability relating to hand surgery (n = 2), orthopaedic surgery (n = 1) and orthopaedic implants (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Despite an established link between health care and greenhouse gas emissions we found limited empirical data estimating the impact of musculoskeletal health care on the environment. These data are needed to determine whether actions to lower the carbon footprint of musculoskeletal health care should be a priority and to identify those aspects of care that should be prioritised.

Public and patient perceptions of diagnostic labels for non-specific low back pain: a content analysis.

PURPOSE: An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations. METHODS: In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses. RESULTS: Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

Diagnostic labels and advice for rotator cuff disease influence perceived need for shoulder surgery: an online randomised experiment.

QUESTION: What are the effects of diagnostic labels and advice, and interactions between labels and advice, on perceived need for shoulder surgery for rotator cuff disease? DESIGN: 2×2 factorial online randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: People with shoulder pain. INTERVENTION: Participants read a scenario describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice, and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation stressed that treatment is needed for recovery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived need for surgery (primary outcome), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist; and perceived seriousness of the condition, recovery expectations, impact on work performance and need to avoid work. RESULTS: A total of 2,024 responses (99.8% of 2,028 randomised) were analysed. Labelling as bursitis (versus rotator cuff tear) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -0.5 on a 0-to-10 scale, 98.3% CI -0.7 to -0.2), imaging and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and need to avoid work. Guideline-based advice (versus treatment recommendation) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -1.0, 98.3% CI -1.3 to -0.7), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and recovery expectations. There was little to no evidence of an advice label interaction for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Labels and advice influenced perceived need for surgery and other secondary outcomes in people with rotator cuff disease, with larger effects for advice. There was evidence of little or no interaction between labels and advice for any outcome, but the additive effect of labels and advice appeared large for some outcomes (eg, perceived need for imaging and perceived seriousness of the condition). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621001370897.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery. METHODS: Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes. RESULTS: 409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

Effect of diagnostic labelling on management intentions for non-specific low back pain: A randomized scenario-based experiment.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic labels may influence treatment intentions. We examined the effect of labelling low back pain (LBP) on beliefs about imaging, surgery, second opinion, seriousness, recovery, work, and physical activities. METHODS: Six-arm online randomized experiment with blinded participants with and without LBP. Participants received one of six labels: 'disc bulge', 'degeneration', 'arthritis', 'lumbar sprain', 'non-specific LBP', 'episode of back pain'. The primary outcome was the belief about the need for imaging. RESULTS: A total of 1375 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 years [18.4 years]; 748 women [54.4%]) were included. The need for imaging was rated lower with the labels 'episode of back pain' (4.2 [2.9]), 'lumbar sprain' (4.2 [2.9]) and 'non-specific LBP' (4.4 [3.0]) compared to the labels 'arthritis' (6.0 [2.9]), 'degeneration' (5.7 [3.2]) and 'disc bulge' (5.7 [3.1]). The same labels led to higher recovery expectations and lower ratings of need for a second opinion, surgery and perceived seriousness compared to 'disc bulge', 'degeneration' and 'arthritis'. Differences were larger amongst participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care. No differences were found in beliefs about physical activity and work between the six labels. CONCLUSIONS: 'Episode of back pain', 'lumbar sprain' and 'non-specific LBP' reduced need for imaging, surgery and second opinion compared to 'arthritis', 'degeneration' and 'disc bulge' amongst public and patients with LBP as well as reducing the perceived seriousness of LBP and enhancing recovery expectations. The impact of labels appears most relevant amongst those at risk of poor outcomes (participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care).

A content analysis of online information about the benefits and harms of spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether online information about the benefits and harms of surgery contains an accurate description of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion of webpages containing information about surgery for spinal pain (decompression and fusion) that accurately described the evidence on the benefits of surgery, described harms, and provided quantitative estimates of these harms. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of webpages containing information about spine surgery. Two reviewers identified webpages and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the proportion of webpages that accurately described the evidence on the benefits, described harms, and provided quantitative estimates of these harms. RESULTS: We included 117 webpages. Only 29 (25%) webpages accurately described the evidence on the benefits of spine surgery, and more webpages on decompression accurately described the evidence compared to webpages on fusion (31% vs 15%, difference in proportions = 16%; 95% CI: 2%, 31%). Harms of surgery were described in most webpages (n = 76, 65%), but a much smaller proportion of webpages (n = 18, 15%) provided a quantitative estimate for the mentioned harms. CONCLUSIONS: Most webpages failed to accurately describe the benefits and harms of decompression and fusion surgeries for spinal pain. Unbiased consumer resources and educating the public on how to critically evaluate health claims are important steps to improve knowledge on the benefits and harms of spine surgery.

Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design published in any language were eligible provided they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) whether they reduce surgery and improve patient outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We screened 6341 records, read 27 full-texts, and included 12 studies (all observational; 11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53 to 96%. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0 to 83%. Second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion services typically recommend less surgical treatments compared to first opinions and may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. There is a need for high-quality randomised trials to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery.

How do people perceive different labels for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of data collected in a randomised controlled experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Explore how people perceive different labels for rotator cuff disease in terms of words or feelings evoked by the label and treatments they feel are needed. SETTING: We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a six-arm, online randomised controlled experiment. PARTICIPANTS: 1308 people with and without shoulder pain read a vignette describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to one of six labels: subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tear, bursitis, rotator-cuff-related shoulder pain, shoulder sprain and episode of shoulder pain. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Participants answered two questions (free-text response) about: (1) words or feelings evoked by the label; (2) what treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers iteratively developed coding frameworks to analyse responses.Results1308/1626 (80%) complete responses for each question were analysed. Psychological distress (21%), uncertainty (22%), serious condition (15%) and poor prognosis (9%) were most often expressed by those labelled with subacromial impingement syndrome. For those labelled with a rotator cuff tear, psychological distress (13%), serious condition (9%) and poor prognosis (8%) were relatively common, while minor issue was expressed least often compared with the other labels (5%). Treatment/investigation and surgery were common among those labelled with a rotator cuff tear (11% and 19%, respectively) and subacromial impingement syndrome (9% and 10%) compared with bursitis (7% and 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Words or feelings evoked by certain labels for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why some labels drive management preferences towards surgery and imaging more than others.

Diagnostic Labels for Rotator Cuff Disease Can Increase People's Perceived Need for Shoulder Surgery: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether different labels for rotator cuff disease influence people's perceived need for surgery. DESIGN: Randomized controlled experiment. METHODS: Participants with and without shoulder pain read a vignette describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomized to 1 of 6 terms describing rotator cuff disease: subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tear, bursitis, rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, shoulder sprain, and episode of shoulder pain. Perceived need for shoulder surgery was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included perceived need for imaging, an injection, a second opinion, and to see a specialist; perceived seriousness of the condition; recovery expectations; and perceived impact on work attendance. Using a Bonferroni correction (significance, P<.003), adjusted between-group mean differences and 99.67% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a 1-way analysis of covariance. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eight (80% of 1626) responses were analyzed. Participants' mean ± SD age was 40.3 ± 16.0 years, and 59% were women. Mean perceived need for surgery (0-10 scale) was low and slightly higher among those assigned to the rotator cuff tear label compared to the bursitis label (2.6 versus 2.1; adjusted mean difference, 0.7; 99.67% CI: 0.0, 1.4). Mean perceived need for imaging (0-10) was moderate and slightly higher among those assigned to the rotator cuff tear (4.7 versus 3.7; adjusted mean difference, 1.0; 99.67% CI: 0.2, 1.9) and subacromial impingement syndrome labels (4.7 versus 3.7; adjusted mean difference, 1.0; 99.7% CI: 0.1, 1.9) compared to the bursitis label. CONCLUSION: There were small differences in the perceived need for surgery and imaging between some labels, which could be important at the population level. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(8):401-411. Epub 31 Mar 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10375.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

The effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We performed electronic database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to July 10th 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hip arthroscopic surgery to a placebo/sham surgery and other non-operative comparators (e.g. no intervention, physiotherapy, etc.). Two authors independently selected studies, rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. Hip-specific quality of life (QoL) at 12 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We identified three RCTs (n = 650 participants). There is high certainty evidence from three RCTs (n = 574 participants) that hip arthroscopic surgery provided superior outcomes compared to non-operative care for hip-specific QoL at 12 months (mean difference (MD): 11.02 points, 95% CI 4.83-17.21). Low quality evidence suggests that arthroscopic surgery provided similar outcomes to non-operative care for hip-specific QoL at 24 months (MD: 6.3, 95% CI -6.1 to 18.7). CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI provides superior outcomes compared to non-operative care at 12 months, but not at 24 months. Placebo trials are needed to establish the efficacy of hip arthroscopic surgery.

Correction to: Deprescribing Opioids in Chronic Non­cancer Pain: Systematic Review of Randomised Trials.

Page 9, Fig. 2, which originally appeared as.

Deprescribing Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: Systematic Review of Randomised Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.