Remotely delivered physiotherapy is as effective as face-to-face physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions (REFORM): a randomised trial.

QUESTION: Is remotely delivered physiotherapy as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions? DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 210 adult participants with a musculoskeletal condition who presented for outpatient physiotherapy at five public hospitals in Sydney. INTERVENTION: One group received a remotely delivered physiotherapy program for 6 weeks that consisted of one face-to-face physiotherapy session in conjunction with weekly text messages, phone calls at 2 and 4 weeks, and an individualised home exercise program delivered through an app. The other group received usual face-to-face physiotherapy care in an outpatient setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15 out of 100 points. Secondary outcomes included: the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 26 weeks; kinesiophobia, pain, function/disability, global impression of change and quality of life at 6 and 26 weeks; and satisfaction with service delivery at 6 weeks. RESULTS: The mean between-group difference (95% CI) for the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks was 2.7 out of 100 points (-3.5 to 8.8), where a positive score favoured remotely delivered physiotherapy. The lower end of the 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin. Whilst non-inferiority margins were not set for the secondary outcomes, the 95% CI of the mean between-group difference ruled out clinically meaningful differences. CONCLUSION: Remotely delivered physiotherapy with support via phone, text and an app is as good as face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619000065190.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000934640.

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.

Don't Just Stand There. Rethinking the Ideal Body Posture for Otorhinolaryngologists.

Surgeons have a high rate of work-related musculoskeletal injuries; an area that has received little attention. These injuries result in surgeons performing less efficiently, needing to take time off work, suffering higher rates of burnout, and may ultimately lead surgeons to retire earlier than planned. Otorhinolaryngologists are at particular risk for work-related musculoskeletal injuries. Beyond the clinician, sustaining such injuries can negatively impact patient safety. Ergonomic interventions have been used effectively to reduce work-related musculoskeletal injuries in other professions, yet not in surgery. With traditional teachings of ideal body postures to avoid injury and manual handling training being re-evaluated, it is important to explore evidence based interventions for reducing work-related musculoskeletal injuries in otorhinolaryngologists. New research encourages us to shift the focus away from the traditional one-size-fits-all approach to ergonomics and toward postural recommendations and education that promote a dynamic, individualized approach to avoiding sustained, static and awkward postures.

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.

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.

Awareness and use of five imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes. RESULTS: We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

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.

Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.

Can language enhance physical therapists' willingness to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations? A best-worst scaling study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations. DESIGN: Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores. RESULTS: 215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy.

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM. RESULTS: A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR376477. HIGHLIGHTS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and user-test a patient decision aid portraying the benefits and harms of non-surgical management and surgery for Achilles tendon ruptures. DESIGN: Mixed methods. SETTING: A draft decision aid was developed using guidance from a multidisciplinary steering group and existing patient decision aids. Participants were recruited through social media. PARTICIPANTS: People who have previously sustained an Achilles tendon rupture and health professionals who manage these patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid from health professionals and patients who had previously suffered an Achilles tendon rupture. The feedback was used to redraft the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, redrafting according to feedback and further interviews was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 health professionals (13 physiotherapists, 3 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 chiropractor, 1 sports medicine physician) and 15 patients who had suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (median time since rupture was 12 months). Most health professionals and patients rated the aid's acceptability as good-excellent. Interviews showcased agreement among health professionals and patients on most aspects of the decision aid: introduction, treatment options, comparing benefits and harms, questions to ask health professionals and formatting. However, health professionals had differing views on details about Achilles tendon retraction distance, factors that modify the risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to both patients and health professionals, and our study highlights the views of key stakeholders on important information to consider when developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of this tool on the decision-making of people considering Achilles tendon surgery is warranted.

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.

Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included. RESULTS: There was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3-25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6-1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for 'dorsalgia' (IQR 4.4-8.6) and 5.4 days for 'intervertebral disc disorders' (IQR 4.1-8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6-313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.

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.