Predictors of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain after breast cancer surgery affects up to 60% of patients. Early identification of those at higher risk could help inform optimal management. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to explore factors associated with persistent pain among women who have undergone surgery for breast cancer. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to Mar. 12, 2015, to identify cohort or case-control studies that explored the association between risk factors and persistent pain (lasting ≥ 2 mo) after breast cancer surgery. We pooled estimates of association using random-effects models, when possible, for all independent variables reported by more than 1 study. We reported relative measures of association as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and absolute measures of association as the absolute risk increase. RESULTS: Thirty studies, involving a total of 19 813 patients, reported the association of 77 independent variables with persistent pain. High-quality evidence showed increased odds of persistent pain with younger age (OR for every 10-yr decrement 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.48), radiotherapy (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.57), axillary lymph node dissection (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.73-3.35) and greater acute postoperative pain (OR for every 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30). Moderate-quality evidence suggested an association with the presence of preoperative pain (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.64). Given the 30% risk of pain in the absence of risk factors, the absolute risk increase corresponding to these ORs ranged from 3% (acute postoperative pain) to 21% (axillary lymph node dissection). High-quality evidence showed no association with body mass index, type of breast surgery, chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. INTERPRETATION: Development of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery was associated with younger age, radiotherapy, axillary lymph node dissection, greater acute postoperative pain and preoperative pain. Axillary lymph node dissection provides the only high-yield target for a modifiable risk factor to prevent the development of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System. RESULTS: Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Sensitivity subgroup analysis based on single-center vs. multi-center trial status when interpreting meta-analyses pooled estimates: the logical way forward.

OBJECTIVES: Prior studies regarding whether single-center trial estimates are larger than multi-center are equivocal. We examined the extent to which single-center trials yield systematically larger effects than multi-center trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the 119 core clinical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published during 2012. In this meta-epidemiologic study, for binary variables, we computed the pooled ratio of ORs (RORs), and for continuous outcomes mean difference in standardized mean differences (SMDs), we conducted weighted random-effects meta-regression and random-effects MA modeling. Our primary analyses were restricted to MAs that included at least five RCTs and in which at least 25% of the studies used each of single trial center (SC) and more trial center (MC) designs. RESULTS: We identified 81 MAs for the odds ratio (OR) and 43 for the SMD outcome measures. Based on our analytic plan, our primary analysis (core) is based on 25 MAs/241 RCTs (binary outcome) and 18 MAs/173 RCTs (continuous outcome). Based on the core analysis, we found no difference in magnitude of effect between SC and MC for binary outcomes [RORs: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83, 1.24; I(2) 20.2%]. Effect sizes were systematically larger for SC than MC for the continuous outcome measure (mean difference in SMDs: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.05; I(2) 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support prior findings of larger effects in SC than MC trials addressing binary outcomes but show a very similar small increase in effect in SC than MC trials addressing continuous outcomes. Authors of systematic reviews would be wise to include all trials irrespective of SC vs. MC design and address SC vs. MC status as a possible explanation of heterogeneity (and consider sensitivity analyses).

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).