The acute pain crisis in sickle cell disease: What can be done to improve outcomes?

The acute pain crisis (APC) is the commonest complication of sickle cell disease (SCD). Severe episodes may require treatment in hospital with strong opioid analgesic drugs, combined with additional supportive care measures. Guidelines for APC management have been produced over the past two decades gathering evidence from published studies, expert opinion, and patient perspective. Unfortunately, reports from multiple sources indicate that guidelines are often not followed, and that acute care in emergency departments and on acute medical wards is suboptimal. It is important to understand what leads to this breakdown in health care, and to identify evidence-based interventions which could be implemented to improve care. This review focuses on recently published articles as well as information about on-going clinical trials. Aspects of care which could potentially make a difference to patient experience include availability and accessibility of individual care plans agreed between patient and treating specialist, innovative means of delivering initial opioids to reduce time to first analgesia, and availability of a specialist unit away from the ED, where expert care can be delivered in a more compassionate environment. The current evidence of improved outcomes and health economic advantage with these interventions is inadequate, and this is hampering their implementation into health care systems.

Effects of foam roller on pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of using foam roller on pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This systematic review was registered in the National Institute for Health Research's prospective online registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42023456841. The databases Pubmed, Medline (via Ovid), Embase, BVS, and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were consulted to carry out this systematic review. Notably, the records of clinical trials characterized as eligible were manually searched. The search terms were: (foam rolling OR foam rolling vibration) AND (acute musculoskeletal pain) AND (chronic musculoskeletal pain). The search was performed until August 22, 2023. For the analysis of the methodological quality, the PEDro scale was used for each of the manuscripts included in the systematic review. Due to the heterogeneity in the studies included in this systematic review, performing a meta-analysis of the analyzed variables was impossible. RESULTS: Only six manuscripts were eligible for data analysis. The type of FR used was non-vibrational, being applied by a therapist in only one of the manuscripts. With an application time ranging from at least 45 s to 15 min, the non-vibrational FR was applied within a day up to six weeks. Using the PEDro scale, scores were assigned that varied between 4 and 8 points, with an average of 6 ± 1.29 points. Only two randomized clinical trials found a significant benefit in pain intensity of adding FR associated with a therapeutic exercise protocol in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome and chronic neck pain. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review do not elucidate or reinforce the clinical use of FR in pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain.

The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain. METHODS: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry. RESULTS: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain. INTERPRETATION: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.

National review of acute pain service utilization, models of care, and clinical practices within the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest healthcare network in the USA and has been a national leader in opioid safety for acute pain management. However, detailed information on the availability and characteristics of acute pain services within its facilities is lacking. We designed this project to assess the current state of acute pain services within the VHA. METHODS: A 50-question electronic survey developed by the VHA national acute pain medicine committee was emailed to anesthesiology service chiefs at 140 VHA surgical facilities within the USA. Data collected were analyzed by facility complexity level and service characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 140 VHA surgical facilities contacted, 84 (60%) completed the survey. Thirty-nine (46%) responding facilities had an acute pain service. The presence of an acute pain service was associated with higher facility complexity level designation. The most common staffing model was 2.0 full-time equivalents, which typically included at least one physician. Services performed most by formal acute pain programs included peripheral nerve catheters, inpatient consult services, and ward ketamine infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread efforts to promote opioid safety and improve pain management, the availability of dedicated acute pain services within the VHA is not universal. Higher complexity programs are more likely to have acute pain services, which may reflect differential resource distribution, but the barriers to implementation have not yet been fully explored.

Implications for a mindfulness-enhanced positive affect induction: A brief commentary toward acute pain management.

Over the past decade research has increased on dynamics between mindfulness, positive affect, and pain. While there have been studies examining the direct use of positive psychology for pain management, few have examined the use of a specific mindfulness-enhanced positive affect induction (i.e. a singular brief technique engendering mindfulness and strong positive affect) toward acute pain and pain flare management. This topical commentary discusses the need for such a technique toward bolstered gold-standard interventions, related studies, and possible future directions for acute and post-surgical pain management. Future research is encouraged to build from prior research on loving-kindness meditation and examine novel, brief mindfulness-enhanced positive affect inductions for acute pain management.

Management of Acute Sickle Cell Disease Pain.

Pain is a common complication of sickle cell disease. Sickle cell pain can often be effectively managed by pediatricians in outpatient and hospital settings. Acute pain management should be initiated quickly. Patients need to be evaluated for sickle cell complications and other causes of pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids are the mainstay of pain treatment, but additional therapies include hydration, local pain control, muscle relaxants, and nonpharmacologic approaches. Healthy lifestyle habits and good behavioral and mental health are important for preventing and coping with sickle cell disease pain. Disease-modifying therapies, such as hydroxyurea, can help prevent sickle hemoglobin polymerization and acute pain episodes. Because sickle cell disease largely affects people who are racialized minorities in the United States, health-care providers need to be aware of how their own personal biases may affect care of these patients.

Regional Anesthesia for Acute Pain Treatment in Pre-Hospital and In-Hospital Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: More than half of all emergency department patients seek help for acute pain, which is usually of musculoskeletal origin. Acute pain is often inadequately treated even today, particularly in children and in older patients. In this study, we assess the potential role of regional anesthetic methods in improving the treatment of pain in the preclinical and clinical emergency setting. METHODS: Pain-related reasons for admission were identified and quantified from emergency admission data. A structured literature search was carried out for clinical studies on the treatment of pain in the emergency setting, and a before-and-after comparison of the pain relief achieved with established vs. newer regional anesthetic methods was performed. RESULTS: 43% of emergency patients presented with acute musculoskeletal pain. The literature search yielded 3732 hits for screening; data on entity-specific pain therapy spectra were extracted from 153 studies and presented for the main pain regions. The degree of pain relief obtained through regional anesthetic procedures, on a nominal rating scale from 0 to 10, was 4 to 7 points for acute back and chest wall pain, >6 for shoulder pain, 5 to 7 for hand and forearm injuries, and >4 for hip fractures. These results were as good as, or better than, those obtained by analgesia/sedation with strong opioids. CONCLUSION: Modern regional anesthetic techniques can improve acute pain management in the emergency department and, to some extent, in the pre-hospital setting as well. Pain relief with these techniques is quantifiably better than with strong opioids in some clinical situations; moreover, there is evidence of further advantages including process optimization and fewer complications. Data for comparative study remain scarce because of a lack of standardization.

Mechanisms inherent in acute-to-chronic pain after surgery - risk, diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic factors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pain is an expected consequence of a surgery, but it is far from being well controlled. One major complication of acute pain is its risk of persistency beyond healing. This so-called chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) is defined as new or increased pain due to surgery that lasts for at least 3 months after surgery. CPSP is frequent, underlies a complex bio-psycho-social process and constitutes an important socioeconomic challenge with significant impact on patients' quality of life. Its importance has been recognized by its inclusion in the eleventh version of the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence for most pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions preventing CPSP is inconsistent. Identification of associated patient-related factors, such as psychosocial aspects, comorbidities, surgical factors, pain trajectories, or biomarkers may allow stratification and selection of treatment options based on underlying individual mechanisms. Consequently, the identification of patients at risk and implementation of individually tailored, preventive, multimodal treatment to reduce the risk of transition from acute to chronic pain is facilitated. SUMMARY: This review will give an update on current knowledge on mechanism-based risk, prognostic and predictive factors for CPSP in adults, and preventive and therapeutic approaches, and how to use them for patient stratification in the future.

Demystifying Acute Pain Management in the Emergency Department: A Case-Based Approach.

Introduction: Acute pain is one of the most common complaints that presents to the emergency department. Despite its ubiquity, oligoanalgesia, or the undertreatment of pain, remains a problem in medicine, possibly due to minimal dedicated pain teaching for senior medical students transitioning to residency. Methods: We designed a 2.5-hour interactive seminar for senior medical students transitioning into residency. The seminar included a chalk talk and case-based discussion, reviewed pain physiology, revisited pain assessment, and introduced pain management strategies using a novel acute pain plan to organize an analgesic approach from presentation through disposition from the emergency department. The didactic chalk talk was interwoven with a case of acute pain. Seminar materials promoted a near-peer teaching opportunity for future facilitators. Learners completed open-ended pre-/postsession knowledge assessments. Results: Data were obtained from 19 fourth-year medical students enrolled in three iterations of a preinternship course at Harvard Medical School. Prior to the seminar, learners scored an average of 23.0 out of 53.0 points (SD = 9.0) on the knowledge assessment, which improved to 36.6 out of 53.0 points (SD = 6.7) following the seminar (paired t test p < .001). Learner satisfaction data revealed a positive response to the seminar: Learners felt more confident managing pain and highly recommended the seminar's continuation in the future. Discussion: Initial data from this seminar suggest a need for and benefit of targeted pain education for senior medical students. Seminar materials can easily be adapted for learners in other departments or in early graduate medical education.

Management of acute non-specific low back pain in the emergency department: do emergency physicians follow the guidelines? Results of a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) recommend avoiding imaging studies or invasive treatments and to advise patients to stay active. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of acute non-specific LBP in the emergency departments (ED). SETTING: We invited all department chiefs of Swiss EDs and their physician staff to participate in a web-based survey using two clinical case vignettes of patients with acute non-specific LBP presenting to an ED. In both cases, no neurological deficits or red flags were present. Guideline adherence and low-value care was defined based on current guideline recommendations. RESULTS: In total, 263 ED physicians completed at least one vignette, while 212 completed both vignettes (43% residents, 32% senior/attending physicians and 24% chief physicians). MRI was considered in 31% in vignette 1 and 65% in vignette 2. For pain management, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and metamizole were mostly used. A substantial proportion of ED physicians considered treatments with questionable benefit and/or increased risk for adverse events such as oral steroids (vignette 1, 12% and vignette 2, 19%), muscle relaxants (33% and 38%), long-acting strong opioids (25% and 33%) and spinal injections (22% and 43%). Although guidelines recommend staying active, 72% and 67% of ED physicians recommended activity restrictions. CONCLUSION: Management of acute non-specific LBP in the ED was not in agreement with current guideline recommendations in a substantial proportion of ED physicians. Overuse of imaging studies, the use of long-acting opioids and muscle relaxants, as well as recommendations for activity and work restrictions were prevalent and may potentially be harmful.

Ultrasound guided lumbar erector spinae block: A case series on a novel technique for the treatment of acute low Back pain.

Low back pain is among one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED). Regional anesthesia has recently gained traction as an option for analgesia in ED patients, especially in the wake of the opioid epidemic. Data on lumbar application of the ESPB in the setting of acute, refractory low back pain in the ED is scarce. We describe a series of three cases of patients who presented to the ED with severe low back pain refractory to traditional therapy, successfully treated using lumbar ESPB. Lumbar ESPB may be an effective approach to achieving rapid analgesia in patients who present with low back pain who may otherwise be poor candidates for more traditional therapy, such as with opioids or NSAIDs, or who may have refractory pain despite use of these medications.

Cultural Framing and the Impact On Acute Pain and Pain Services.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Optimal treatment requires a thorough understanding of all factors contributing to pain in the individual patient. In this review, we investigate the influence of cultural frameworks on pain experience and management. RECENT FINDINGS: The loosely defined concept of culture in pain management integrates a predisposing set of diverse biological, psychological and social characteristics shared within a group. Cultural and ethnic background strongly influence the perception, manifestation, and management of pain. In addition, cultural, racial and ethnic differences continue to play a major role in the disparate treatment of acute pain. A holistic and culturally sensitive approach is likely to improve pain management outcomes, will better cover the needs of diverse patient populations and help reduce stigma and health disparities. Mainstays include awareness, self-awareness, appropriate communication, and training.

Meditation as an Adjunct to the Management of Acute Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to present current understanding and evidence for meditation, mostly referring to mindfulness meditation, for the management of acute pain and potential opportunities of incorporating it into the acute pain service practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There is conflicting evidence concerning meditation as a remedy in acute pain. While some studies have found a bigger impact of meditation on the emotional response to a painful stimulus than on the reduction in actual pain intensities, functional Magnet Resonance Imaging has enabled the identification of various brain areas involved in meditation-induced pain relief. Potential benefits of meditation in acute pain treatment include changes in neurocognitive processes. Practice and Experience are necessary to induce pain modulation. In the treatment of acute pain, evidence is emerging only recently. Meditative techniques represent a promising approach for acute pain in various settings.

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update.  We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves.  We incorporated 76 new studies into the review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes.  MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I2 interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I2 = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I2 = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I2 = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I2 = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I2 = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I2 = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence.  In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I2 = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I2 = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.

Effectiveness of technology-based interventions compared with other non-pharmacological interventions for relieving procedural pain in hospitalized neonates: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for relieving procedural pain among hospitalized neonates compared with other non-pharmacological interventions. INTRODUCTION: Neonates who require hospital care often experience acute pain during medical procedures. The current best practice for relieving pain in neonates is the use of non-pharmacological interventions, such as oral solutions or intervention-based human touch. Technological solutions (eg, games, eHealth applications, mechanical vibrators) have become more commonplace in pediatric pain management over recent years; however, there is a sizeable knowledge gap around how effective technology-based interventions are for relieving pain in neonates. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered experimental trials that include technology-based, non-pharmacological interventions for relieving procedural pain among hospitalized neonates. The primary outcomes of interest include pain response to a procedure measured by a pain assessment scale validated for neonates, behavioral indicators, and changes in physiological indicators. METHODS: The search strategy aimed to identify both published and unpublished studies. MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedNar, and EBSCO Open Dissertations databases were searched for studies published in English, Finnish, or Swedish. Critical appraisal and data extraction were conducted by 2 independent researchers who adhered to JBI methodology. Meta-analysis could not be performed due to considerable heterogeneity in the studies; as a result, the findings are presented narratively. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 618 children were included in the review. The staff members delivering the interventions and the outcome assessors were not blinded in all of the studies, which introduced a potential risk of bias. The presented technology-based interventions were diverse, including laser acupuncture, noninvasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points, robot platform, vibratory stimulation, recorded maternal voice, and recorded intrauterine voice. In the studies, pain was measured using validated pain scales, behavioral indicators, and physiological variables. In the studies in which pain was assessed with a validated pain measure (N=8), technology-based pain relief was significantly more effective than the comparator in 2 studies, whereas no statistically significant differences were observed in 4 studies and the technology-based intervention was less effective than the comparator in 2 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of technology-based interventions in relieving neonatal pain, either as a standalone method or in combination with another non-pharmacological method, was mixed. Further research is needed to provide reliable evidence on which technology-based, non-pharmacological pain relief intervention is most effective for hospitalized neonates. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A Finnish-language version of the abstract of this review is available as supplemental digital content [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A19 ]. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021254218.

Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Pain-related Quantitative Sensory Tests in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Acute Experimental Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This report provides a systematic review of the literature to analyze the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on analgesia on sensitization measures, in studies with chronic musculoskeletal pain and in studies with acute experimental pain. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020213473). The authors searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature via Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and hand-searched reference lists were also conducted. Among 22,252 manuscripts found, 58 studies were included in the systematic review and 35 in the meta-analysis. Thirty-four studies assessed pain intensity; 24 studies investigated hyperalgesia; temporal summation was only evaluated in 2 studies; and conditioned pain modulation was not observed in the included studies. Meta-analyses favored TENS, despite its limitations and heterogeneity. Primary hyperalgesia in studies with musculoskeletal pain presented a high level of evidence, while other outcomes presented moderate evidence in the studies that were included. It is not possible to infer results about both temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation. Moderate evidence suggests that TENS promotes analgesia by reducing both central and peripheral sensitization, as shown by the reduction in primary and secondary hyperalgesia, pain intensity at rest, and during movement in experimental acute pain and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Overall, both types of studies analyzed in this review presented meta-analyses favorable to the use of TENS (compared to placebo TENS), showing reductions in both primary and secondary hyperalgesia, as well as decreases in pain intensity at rest and in motion. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents data from the literature on the effect of TENS through sensitization assessments in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, or acute experimental pain. These data contribute to knowledge about pain neuroscience research, using TENS technology.

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.