PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine. SYNTHESIS: A total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic low back pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients. SYNTHESIS: A total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Exercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.

Asymptomatic Infection and Transmission of Pertussis in Households: A Systematic Review.

We conducted a systematic review to describe the frequency of mild, atypical, and asymptomatic infection among household contacts of pertussis cases and to explore the published literature for evidence of asymptomatic transmission. We included studies that obtained and tested laboratory specimens from household contacts regardless of symptom presentation and reported the proportion of cases with typical, mild/atypical, or asymptomatic infection. After screening 6789 articles, we included 26 studies. Fourteen studies reported household contacts with mild/atypical pertussis. These comprised up to 46.2% of all contacts tested. Twenty-four studies reported asymptomatic contacts with laboratory-confirmed pertussis, comprising up to 55.6% of those tested. Seven studies presented evidence consistent with asymptomatic pertussis transmission between household contacts. Our results demonstrate a high prevalence of subclinical infection in household contacts of pertussis cases, which may play a substantial role in the ongoing transmission of disease. Our review reveals a gap in our understanding of pertussis transmission.

PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoarthritis in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids. SYNTHESIS: In total, 235 systematic reviews were included. Owing to limited reporting of responder meta-analyses, a post hoc decision was made to evaluate individual RCTs with responder analysis within the included systematic reviews. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. A total of 155 RCTs were included. Interventions that led to more patients attaining meaningful pain relief compared with control included exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 2.36; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.12), intra-articular corticosteroids (RR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.62), SNRIs (RR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.52), glucosamine (RR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.74), topical NSAIDs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.38), chondroitin (RR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), viscosupplementation (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33), and opioids (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated no effect with glucosamine, chondroitin, or viscosupplementation in studies that were only publicly funded. When trials longer than 4 weeks were analyzed, the benefits of opioids were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Interventions that provide meaningful relief for chronic osteoarthritis pain might include exercise, intra-articular corticosteroids, SNRIs, oral and topical NSAIDs, glucosamine, chondroitin, viscosupplementation, and opioids. However, funding of studies and length of treatment are important considerations in interpreting these data.

Comparing machine and human reviewers to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from new health technologies is growing, along with demands for evidence to inform policy decisions, creating challenges in completing health technology assessments (HTAs)/systematic reviews (SRs) in a timely manner. Software can decrease the time and burden by automating the process, but evidence validating such software is limited. We tested the accuracy of RobotReviewer, a semi-autonomous risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool, and its agreement with human reviewers. METHODS: Two reviewers independently conducted RoB assessments on a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and their consensus ratings were compared with those generated by RobotReviewer. Agreement with the human reviewers was assessed using percent agreement and weighted kappa (κ). The accuracy of RobotReviewer was also assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve in comparison to the consensus agreement of the human reviewers. RESULTS: The study included 372 RCTs. Inter-rater reliability ranged from κ = -0.06 (no agreement) for blinding of participants and personnel to κ = 0.62 (good agreement) for random sequence generation (excluding overall RoB). RobotReviewer was found to use a high percentage of "irrelevant supporting quotations" to complement RoB assessments for blinding of participants and personnel (72.6%), blinding of outcome assessment (70.4%), and allocation concealment (54.3%). CONCLUSION: RobotReviewer can help with risk of bias assessment of RCTs but cannot replace human evaluations. Thus, reviewers should check and validate RoB assessments from RobotReviewer by consulting the original article when not relevant supporting quotations are provided by RobotReviewer. This consultation is in line with the recommendation provided by the developers.

Nursing Staff Time and Care Quality in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In long-term care (LTC) facilities, nursing staff are important contributors to resident care and well-being. Despite this, the relationships between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and quality of resident care in LTC facilities are not well understood and have implications for policy-makers. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the relationship between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and quality of resident care in LTC facilities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A structured literature search was conducted using four bibliographic databases and gray literature sources. Abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers using Covidence software. Data from the included studies were summarized using a pretested extraction form. The studies were critically appraised, and their results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: The systematic searched yielded 15,842 citations, of which 54 studies (all observational) were included for synthesis. Most studies (n = 53, 98%) investigated the effect of nursing staff time on resident care. Eleven studies addressed minimum care hours and quality of care. One study examined the association between different nursing staff coverage models and resident outcomes. Overall, the quality of the included studies was poor. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Because the evidence was inconsistent and of low quality, there is uncertainty about the direction and magnitude of the association between nursing staff time and type of coverage on quality of care. More rigorously designed studies are needed to test the effects of different cutoffs of care hours and different nursing coverage models on the quality of resident care in LTC facilities.