Secular trends in gabapentinoid dispensing by compensated workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in gabapentinoid prescribing is paralleling the increase in serious harms. To describe the low back pain workers compensation population whose management included a gabapentinoid between 2010 and 2017, and determine secular trends in, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use. METHODS: We analysed claim-level and service-level data from the Victorian workers' compensation programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 for workers with an accepted claim for a low back pain injury and who had programme-funded gabapentinoid dispensing. Secular trends were calculated as a proportion of gabapentinoid dispensings per year. Poisson, negative binomial and Cox hazards models were used to examine changes over time in incidence and time to first dispensing. RESULTS: Of the 17 689 low back pain claimants, one in seven (14.7%) were dispensed at least one gabapentinoid during the first 2 years (n=2608). The proportion of workers who were dispensed a gabapentinoid significantly increased over time (7.9% in 2010 to 18.7% in 2017), despite a reduction in the number of claimants dispensed pain-related medicines. Gabapentinoid dispensing was significantly associated with an opioid analgesic or anti-depressant dispensing claim, but not claimant-level characteristics. The time to first gabapentinoid dispensing significantly decreased over time from 311.9 days (SD 200.7) in 2010 to 148.2 days (SD 183.1) in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of claimants dispensed a gabapentinoid more than doubled in the period 2010-2017; and the time to first dispensing halved during this period.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Efficacy, safety, and dose-dependence of the analgesic effects of opioid therapy for people with osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of opioids for analgesic therapy for people with osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid therapies for treating the pain of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was medium term pain relief (six weeks to less than 12 months). Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry; trials published to 31 October 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain, disability, health-related quality of life, and adverse events data for 36 eligible trials (overall dose range: 10-210 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day). Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to common 0-100-point scales; changes of less than ten points were deemed to be very small effects. Differences in dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. Data were pooled for meta-analysis in random effects models. The evidence from 19 trials (8965 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for very small medium term pain relief (mean difference [MD], -4.59 points; 95% CI, -7.17 to -2.02 points) was low quality, as was that from 16 trials (6882 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for a very small effect on disability (MD, -4.15 points; 95% CI, -6.94 to -1.35 points). Opioid dose was not statistically significantly associated with either degree of pain relief or incidence of adverse events in a meta-regression analysis. Evidence that opioid therapy increased the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.29-1.59) was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid medications may provide very small pain and disability benefits for people with osteoarthritis, but may also increase the risk of adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019142813 (prospective).

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.

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.

Reporting characteristics of journal infographics: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Infographics have become an increasingly popular method to present research findings and increase the attention research receives. As many scientific journals now use infographics to boost the visibility and uptake of the research they publish, infographics have become an important tool for medical education. It is unknown whether such infographics convey the key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of the data such as an adequate description of the study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes; methodological limitations; and numerical estimates of benefits and harms. This study described whether infographics published in peer-reviewed health and medical research journals contain key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of clinical research. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified peer-reviewed journals listed in the top quintile of 35 unique fields of medicine and health research listed in the Journal Citation Reports database. Two researchers screened journals for the presence of infographics. We defined an infographic as a graphical visual representation of research findings. We extracted data from a sample of two of the most recent infographics from each journal. Outcomes were the proportion of infographics that reported key characteristics such as study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes, benefits, harms, effect estimates with measures of precision, between-group differences and conflicts of interest; acknowledged risk of bias, certainty of evidence and study limitations; and based their conclusions on the study's primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 129 infographics from 69 journals. Most infographics described the population (81%), intervention (96%), comparator (91%) and outcomes (94%), but fewer contained enough information on the population (26%), intervention (45%), comparator (20%) and outcomes (55%) for those components of the study to be understood without referring to the main paper. Risk of bias was acknowledged in only 2% of infographics, and none of the 69 studies that had declared a conflict of interest disclosed it in the infographics. CONCLUSIONS: Most infographics do not report sufficient information to allow readers to interpret study findings, including the study characteristics, results, and sources of bias. Our results can inform initiatives to improve the quality of the information presented in infographics.

How do people use and view infographics that summarise health and medical research? A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how people use infographics and their opinion on them has important implications for the design of infographics but has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to describe people's use of and opinions about infographics summarising health and medical research, preferences for information to include in infographics, and barriers to reading full-text articles. METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of consumers of infographics that summarise health or medical research. Demographic and outcome data were collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. A sensitivity analysis explored whether being a researcher/academic influenced the findings. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four participants completed the survey (88% completion rate). Participants included health professionals (66%), researchers (34%), academics (24%), and patients/the public (13%). Most used Twitter (67%) and smartphones (89%) to access and view infographics, and thought infographics were useful tools to communicate research (92%) and increase the attention research receives (95%). Although most participants were somewhat/extremely likely (76%) to read the full-text article after viewing an infographic, some used infographics as a substitute for the full text at least half of the time (41%), thought infographics should be detailed enough so they do not have to read the full text (55%), and viewed infographics as tools to reduce the time burden of reading the full text (64%). Researchers/academics were less likely to report behaviours/beliefs suggesting infographics can reduce the need to read the full-text article. CONCLUSIONS: Given many people use infographics as a substitute for reading the full-text article and want infographics to be detailed enough so they don't have to read the full text, a checklist to facilitate clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed infographics summarising some types of health and medical research may be useful.

Are musculoskeletal conditions neglected in national health surveys?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion of national health surveys that contain questions on the prevalence and consequences of musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We used a comprehensive search strategy to obtain national health surveys from the 218 countries listed by the World Bank. Two authors independently extracted information from each national health survey. Outcomes were the proportion of surveys that contained questions on the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using the Global Burden of Disease categorization of RA, OA, low back pain, neck pain, gout and other and contained condition-specific questions about activity limitation, severity of pain and work absence. We also measured how frequently the prevalence of low back pain was measured using a consensus-based standard definition for low back pain prevalence studies. RESULTS: We identified national health surveys from 170 countries. Sixty-two (36.4%), the majority from high-income countries (n = 43), measured the prevalence of at least one musculoskeletal condition. OA [53 (85.4%)], low back pain [39 (62.9%)] and neck pain [37 (59.7%)] were most commonly measured, while RA and gout prevalence were only measured in 10 (5.9%) and 3 (1.8%) surveys, respectively. A minority of surveys assessed condition-specific activity limitations [6 (3.6%)], pain severity [5 (2.9%)] and work absence [1 (0.6%)]. Only one survey used the consensus-based standard definition for low back pain. CONCLUSION: Musculoskeletal conditions are neglected in the majority of national health surveys. Monitoring musculoskeletal conditions through ongoing surveys is crucial for the development and evaluation of health policies to reduce their burden.

The efficacy and safety of paracetamol for pain relief: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 - 30 April 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0-10-point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, -0.8 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension-type headache (pain-free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.4). CONCLUSIONS: For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42015029282 (prospective).

Immediate Effects of Dry Needling and Myofascial Release on Local and Widespread Pressure Pain Threshold in Individuals With Active Upper Trapezius Trigger Points: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the immediate effects of a single session of dry needling (DN), myofascial release (MR), and sham DN on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and neck pain intensity in individuals with chronic neck pain. METHODS: This was a randomized trial with a blinded outcome assessor. Forty-four individuals with chronic neck pain and unilateral myofascial trigger points in the upper trapezius muscle (UTM) were randomized to receive DN (n = 15), MR (n = 14), or sham DN (n = 15). The PPT over the UTM (ipsilateral and contralateral sides) and the proximal head of the radius (ipsilateral and contralateral to the treated side) and neck pain were assessed immediately and 10 minutes after the intervention. RESULTS: There was no significant Group × Time interaction for PPT in the UTM on the treated side (F = 0.63, P = .641) or the contralateral side (F = 1.77, P = .144). However, there was a main effect of time on both the treated side (F = 4.917, P = .001) and the contralateral side (F = 4.70, P = .015), with DN and MR increasing PPT at the UTM. No significant Group × Time × Side interaction was found for PPT at the proximal head of the radius (F = 1.23, P = .276). Within-group analysis revealed a significant increase in PPT on the ipsilateral and contralateral sides in both DN and MR. Neck pain decreased after DN (P < .001), MR (P < .001), and sham DN (P = .008). CONCLUSION: A single application of DN or MR generated local and distant hypalgesic responses superior to placebo. Future trials are needed to examine whether these findings occur in long-term follow-ups.

Autonomic Effects of Spinal Manipulative Therapy: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on autonomic nervous system (ANS)-mediated outcomes, in both symptomatic and healthy populations, and to assess the quality of evidence for the most prevalent outcomes with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched from their inception to March 2014. Randomized controlled trials involving SMT, such as mobilization and manipulation, that reported at least 1 outcome related to the ANS, with placebo, control groups, or other SMT techniques as comparators, with either healthy or symptomatic samples were included. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used to assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included in this systematic review. Passive accessory intervertebral mobilization produced sympathoexcitation independently of the treated region (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine); although sustained natural apophyseal glides did not influence the ANS, conflicting results were observed regarding manipulation techniques. The overall quality of evidence for all analyzed outcomes ranged from low to very low quality. CONCLUSION: There is evidence pointing toward the existence of sympathoexcitatory short-term effects following passive accessory intervertebral mobilization mobilizations, but not for sustained natural apophyseal glide mobilizations. There is conflicting evidence regarding the ability of manipulation to elicit sympathoexcitation. However, the low quality of the evidence precludes a definitive conclusion of such effects. Based on the current evidence, there is uncertainty regarding the true effect estimates of SMT on ANS-mediated outcomes.

Education can reassure people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain: a 3-arm, randomised, online experiment.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to investigate the immediate effect of best practice education (with and without pain science messages) and structure-focused education on reassurance among people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. We conducted a 3-arm, parallel-group, randomised experiment. People with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain were randomised (1:1:1) to (1) best practice education (highlights that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommends simple self-management strategies); (2) best practice education plus pain science messages (which attempt to improve understanding of pain); and (3) structure-focused education (highlighting that structural changes are responsible for pain and should be targeted with treatment). Coprimary outcomes were self-reported reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain and continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes measured management intentions, credibility and relevance of the education, and similarity to previous education. Two thousand two hundred thirty-seven participants were randomised and provided primary outcome data. Best practice education increased reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain (estimated mean effect 0.5 on a 0-10 scale, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.7) and continuing with daily activities is safe (0.6, 95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared with structure-focused education . Adding pain science messages to best practice education slightly increased both measures of reassurance (0.2, 95% CI 0.0-0.4). Clinicians treating patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain should highlight that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommend simple self-management strategies. The benefit of adding pain science messages is small.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

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.

Compared to what? An analysis of comparators in trials informing the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) low back pain guideline.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in hopes of encouraging evidence-based care for LBP. However, poor quality of trials that underpin CPGs can lead to misleading recommendations for LBP. OBJECTIVES: To categorize the comparator used in trials included in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) LBP CPG and describe the proportion and association of suboptimal comparators with NICE recommendation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to describe the proportion of trials included in the NICE LBP CPG that used a suboptimal comparator. If comparators used an ineffective treatment, a treatment of unknown effectiveness, or no or minimal treatment then they were considered suboptimal. RESULTS: We included 408 trials and analyzed 580 comparators used in the trials. 30.9% of the comparators used in the trials were suboptimal. Trials testing invasive treatments (32.4%) had the highest proportion of suboptimal comparators followed by non-surgical (32.3%) and pharmacological (19.0%) treatments. Trials using suboptimal treatments were less likely to have their treatment recommended (odds ratio: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.98) for use by NICE. CONCLUSION: There is a concerning proportion of suboptimal comparators used in LBP trials that may be misleading CPG recommendations, funding allocation decisions, and ultimately clinical practice. Efforts to increase the use of optimal comparators in LBP trials are urgently needed to better understand what treatments should be recommended.

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.

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.

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.