Advanced clinical practice in paediatric haematology and oncology: developing a capability document.

Specialist roles have been developed to provide holistic care to children and young people with cancer, one of which is the advanced clinical practitioner (ACP) in paediatric oncology and haematology. A survey showed that paediatric oncology and haematology ACPs in the UK work in a wide variety of roles and that their numbers vary greatly between treatment centres. The survey also confirmed the need for a national standardised framework delineating the knowledge, skills and expertise required of ACPs working in paediatric oncology and haematology. This article describes the development of a capability document to support and standardise advanced practice in paediatric oncology and haematology. The document reflects the advanced level of critical thinking, autonomy and decision-making required of ACPs and has been endorsed by the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group and by the Royal College of Nursing. It is hoped that it will support ACPs to consistently deliver high-quality, safe care for the benefit of children and young people with cancer and their families.

Identifying patient concerns during consultations in tertiary burns services: development of the Adult Burns Patient Concerns Inventory.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying the issues and concerns that matter most to burns survivors can be challenging. For a number of reasons, but mainly relating to patient empowerment, some of the most pressing concerns patients may have during a clinical encounter may not naturally be the focal point of that encounter. The Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a tried and tested concept initially developed in the field of head and neck cancer that empowers patients during a clinical encounter through provision of a list of prompts that allows patients to self-report concerns prior to consultation. The aim of this study was to develop a PCI for adult burns patients. DESIGN: Content for the PCI was generated from three sources: burns health-related quality of life tools, thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews with 12 adult burns patients and 17 multidisciplinary team (MDT) members. Content was refined using a Delphi consensus technique, with patients and staff members, using SurveyMonkey. SETTING: Within outpatient secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve adult burns patients and MDT members from two regional burns centres. RESULTS: A total of 111 individual items were generated from the three sources. The Delphi process refined the total number of items to 58. The main emergent domains were physical and functional well-being (18 items), psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being (22 items), social care and social well-being (7 items) and treatment-related concerns (11 items). CONCLUSIONS: The Adult Burns Patient Concerns Inventory is a 58-item, holistic prompt list, designed to be used in the outpatient clinic. It offers a new tool in burn care to improve communication between healthcare professionals and patients, empowering them to identify their most pressing concerns and hence deliver a more focused and targeted patient-centred clinical encounter.

Dual antibiotics for bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater than twice that of the general population. Antibiotics serve as front-line therapy for managing bacterial load, but their use is weighed against the development of antibiotic resistance. Dual antibiotic therapy has the potential to suppress infection from multiple strains of bacteria, leading to more successful treatment of exacerbations, reduced symptoms, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of dual antibiotics in terms of management of exacerbations and extent of antibiotic resistance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycINFO, as well as studies obtained by handsearching of journals/abstracts. We also searched the following trial registries: US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no restriction on language of publication. We conducted our search in October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing dual antibiotics versus a single antibiotic for short-term (< 4 weeks) or long-term management of bronchiectasis diagnosed in adults and/or children by bronchography, plain film chest radiography, or high-resolution computed tomography. Primary outcomes included exacerbations, length of hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were response rates, emergence of resistance to antibiotics, systemic markers of infection, sputum volume and purulence, measures of lung function, adverse events/effects, deaths, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. We did not apply outcome measures as selection criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 287 records, along with the full text of seven reports. Two studies met review inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted data from only one study and conducted GRADE assessments for the following outcomes: successful treatment of exacerbation; response rates; and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised trials assessed the effectiveness of oral plus inhaled dual therapy versus oral monotherapy in a total of 118 adults with a mean age of 62.8 years. One multi-centre trial compared inhaled tobramycin plus oral ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin alone, and one single-centre trial compared nebulised gentamicin plus systemic antibiotics versus a systemic antibiotic alone. Published papers did not report study funding sources.Effect estimates from one small study with 53 adults showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy for the following primary outcomes at the end of the study: successful management of exacerbation - cure at day 42 (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.01; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication at day 21 (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.24; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and serious adverse events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.87; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, researchers provided no evidence of treatment benefit for the following secondary outcomes: clinical response rates - relapse at day 42 (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); microbiological response rate at day 21 - eradicated (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.65; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and adverse events - incidence of wheeze (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.55 to 21.33). Data show no evidence of benefit in terms of sputum volume, lung function, or antibiotic resistance. Outcomes from a second small study with 65 adults, available only as an abstract, were not included in the quantitative data synthesis. The included studies did not report our other primary outcomes: duration; frequency; and time to next exacerbation; nor our secondary outcomes: systemic markers of infection; exercise capacity; and quality of life. We did not identify any trials that included children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small number of studies in adults have generated high-quality evidence that is insufficient to inform robust conclusions, and studies in children have provided no evidence. We identified only one dual-therapy combination of oral and inhaled antibiotics. Results from this single trial of 53 adults that we were able to include in the quantitative synthesis showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy in terms of successful treatment of exacerbations, serious adverse events, sputum volume, lung function, and antibiotic resistance. Further high-quality research is required to determine the efficacy and safety of other combinations of dual antibiotics for both adults and children with bronchiectasis, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), multi-centre, randomised, 12 month, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Early Structured Physiotherapy versus manipulation under anaesthesia versus arthroscopic capsular release for patients referred to secondary care with a primary frozen shoulder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder (also known as adhesive capsulitis) occurs when the capsule, or the soft tissue envelope around the ball and socket shoulder joint, becomes scarred and contracted, making the shoulder tight, painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 10 women of working age. Although this condition can settle with time (typically taking 1 to 3 years), for some people it causes severe symptoms and needs referral to hospital. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two invasive and costly surgical interventions that are commonly used in secondary care in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with a non-surgical comparator of Early Structured Physiotherapy. METHODS: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 500 adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder, and who have radiographs that exclude other pathology. Early Structured Physiotherapy with an intra-articular steroid injection will be compared with manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection or arthroscopic (keyhole) capsular release followed by manipulation. Both surgical interventions will be followed with a programme of post-procedural physiotherapy. These treatments will be undertaken in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Oxford Shoulder Score (a patient self-reported assessment of shoulder function) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomisation; and on the day that treatment starts and 6 months later. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, the EQ-5D-5 L score, pain, extent of recovery and complications. We will explore the acceptability of the different treatments to patients and health care professionals using qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The three treatments being compared are the most frequently used in secondary care in the NHS, but there is uncertainty about which one works best and at what cost. UK FROST is a rigorously designed and adequately powered study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of this common condition in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010, Issue 9. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers. The original search for the review was run in November 2009 and searched all databases from their inception. To identify studies for inclusion in this update we searched from 2009 to July 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS or RINCE if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 with pain of three months duration or more and measured pain as a primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses. We excluded studies judged as being at high risk of bias from the analysis. We used the GRADE system to summarise the quality of evidence for core comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 23 trials (involving 773 participants randomised) in this update, making a total of 56 trials in the review (involving 1710 participants randomised). This update included a total of 30 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 14 tDCS and one study of RINCE(the original review included 19 rTMS, eight CES and six tDCS studies). We judged only three studies as being at low risk of bias across all criteria.Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS (involving 528 participants) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low-frequency stimulation is ineffective (low-quality evidence) and that rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is ineffective (very low-quality evidence). We found a short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies (low-quality evidence, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.51 P < 0.01)). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 8% to 15%) reduction in pain, which does not exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimal clinically important difference (≥ 15%). Evidence for multiple-dose studies was heterogenous but did not demonstrate a significant effect (very low-quality evidence).For CES (six studies, 270 participants) no statistically significant difference was found between active stimulation and sham (low-quality evidence).Analysis of tDCS studies (11 studies, 193 people) demonstrated significant heterogeneity and did not find a significant difference between active and sham stimulation (very low-quality evidence). Pre-specified subgroup analysis of tDCS applied to the motor cortex (n = 183) did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect and this lack of effect was consistent for subgroups of single or multiple-dose studies.One small study (n = 91) at unclear risk of bias suggested a positive effect of RINCE over sham stimulation on pain (very low-quality evidence).Non-invasive brain stimulation appears to be frequently associated with minor and transient side effects, though there were two reported incidences of seizure related to active rTMS in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have small short-term effects on chronic pain. It is likely that multiple sources of bias may exaggerate this observed effect. The effects do not meet the predetermined threshold of minimal clinical significance and multiple-dose studies do not consistently demonstrate effectiveness. The available evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the pre-frontal cortex, CES and tDCS are not effective in the treatment of chronic pain. While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation and the conclusion regarding the effectiveness of tDCS has changed. We recommend that previous readers should re-read this update. There is a need for larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. It is likely that future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, the Cochrane PaPaS Group Trials Register and clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES or tDCS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 with pain of three months duration or more and measured pain as a primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses. We excluded studies judged as being at high risk of bias from the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials in the review (involving 937 people)(19 rTMS, eight CES and six tDCS). Only one study was judged as being at low risk of bias.Studies of rTMS (involving 368 participants ) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low-frequency stimulation is ineffective. A short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was suggested (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.54, P < 0.00001). This equates to a 15% (95% CI 10% to 20%) reduction in pain which does not clearly exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimally clinically important difference (> 15%).For CES (four studies, 133 participants) no statistically significant difference was found between active stimulation and sham. Analysis of tDCS studies (five studies, 83 people) demonstrated significant heterogeneity and did not find a significant difference between active and sham stimulation. Pre-specified subgroup analysis of tDCS applied to the motor cortex suggested superiority of active stimulation over sham (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.08).Non-invasive brain stimulation appears to be associated with minor and transient side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have small short-term effects on chronic pain. The effects do not clearly exceed the predetermined threshold of minimal clinical significance. Low-frequency rTMS is not effective in the treatment of chronic pain. There is insufficient evidence from which to draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CES or tDCS. The available evidence suggests that tDCS applied to the motor cortex may have short-term effects on chronic pain and that CES may be ineffective. There is a need for further, rigorously designed studies of all types of stimulation.