A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?

Objective

The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use?

Is acupuncture effective for the treatment of chronic pain? A systematic review

Pain is the major complaint of the estimated one million U.S. consumers who use acupuncture each year. Although acupuncture is widely available in chronic pain clinics, the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain remains in question. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain within the context of the methodological quality of the studies. MEDLINE (1966-99), two complementary medicine databases, 69 conference proceedings, and the bibliographies of other articles and reviews were searched. Trials were included if they were randomized, had populations with pain longer than three months, used needles rather than surface electrodes, and were in English. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a validated instrument. Inter-rater disagreements were resolved by discussion. Fifty one studies met inclusion criteria. Clinical heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling. Results were positive in 21 studies, negative in 3 and neutral in 27. Three fourths of the studies received a low-quality score and low-quality trials were significantly associated with positive results (P=0.05). High-quality studies clustered in designs using sham acupuncture as the control group, where the risk of false negative (type II) errors is high due to large sample size requirements. Six or more acupuncture treatments were significantly associated with positive outcomes (P=0.03) even after adjusting for study quality. We conclude there is limited evidence that acupuncture is more effective than no treatment for chronic pain; and inconclusive evidence that acupuncture is more effective than placebo, sham acupuncture or standard care. However, we have found an important relationship between the methodology of the studies and their results that should guide future research.     

Does computer-aided clinical decision support improve the management of acute abdominal pain? A systematic review

Acute abdominal pain is a common reason for emergency presentation to hospital. Despite recent medical advances in diagnostics, overall clinical decision-making in the assessment of patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain remains poor, with initial clinical diagnostic accuracy being 45-50%. Computer-aided decision support (CADS) systems were widely tested in this arena during the 1970s and 1980s with results that were generally favourable. Inception into routine clinical practice was hampered largely by the size and speed of the hardware. Computer systems and literacy are now vastly superior and the potential benefit of CADS deserves investigation. An extensive literature search was undertaken to find articles that directly compared the clinical diagnostic accuracy prospectively of medical staff in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain before and after the institution of a CADS programme. Included articles underwent meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Ten studies underwent meta-analysis that demonstrated an overall mean percentage improvement in clinical diagnostic accuracy of 17.25% with the use of CADS systems. There is a role for CADS in the initial evaluation of acute abdominal pain, which very often takes place in the emergency department setting.     

Outcomes in acute pain trials: systematic review of what was reported?

Single-dose clinical trial methods for evaluating analgesics have been used successfully for over 50 years. The aims of this review were to examine which pain measurement scales have been used in high quality acute pain trials, to investigate other common measurements or characteristics, to confirm that different scales used by standard methods give the same estimate of analgesic effect, to investigate remedication methodologies and the potential of 'time to remedication' as a standard outcome. Published reports of randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials, investigating at least 20 adult patients (10 patients per treatment arm) experiencing moderate or severe pain using at least one standard pain intensity or pain relief scale were sought. Key design features, outputs and outcomes were catalogued for each report. The main outcomes reported were misleading, detailing only the mean values of data with a demonstrably skewed distribution. After 50 years, the reporting of results from acute pain trials warrants a fresh look. Possible improvements include reporting the number of patients with certain levels of pain relief, or the actual number (percentage) of patients with a certain level of pain relief at a certain time, or more useful information on remedication from trials of at least 12 h duration. Most useful would be all three. Further exploration would only be possible from analysis at the individual patient level.     

Should we establish chest pain observation units in the UK? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature

OBJECTIVES: The chest pain observation unit (CPOU) has been developed in the United States to allow rigorous assessment of patients presenting with chest pain, thus expediting their discharge if assessment is negative. This review aims to examine the evidence for effectiveness and economic efficiency of the CPOU and to explore whether data from the United States can be extrapolated to the UK. METHOD: Search of the literature using Medline and critical appraisal of the validity of the data. RESULTS: Five studies comparing outcomes of CPOU care with routine practice showed no significant difference in objective measures including mortality or missed pathology. Eleven studies described outcomes of a cohort of CPOU patients. Follow up was comprehensive and demonstrated no clinically significant evidence of missed pathology. Nine studies comparing CPOU costs with routine care demonstrated impressive cost savings that were more modest when randomised comparisons were made. CONCLUSION: CPOU care is safe and costs are well defined. There is no strong evidence that a CPOU will improve outcomes if routine practice is good. Cost savings have been shown when compared with routine care in the United States but may not be reproduced the UK.     

Should we establish chest pain observation units in the UK? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature

Objectives—The chest pain observation unit (CPOU) has been developed in the United States to allow rigorous assessment of patients presenting with chest pain, thus expediting their discharge if assessment is negative. This review aims to examine the evidence for effectiveness and economic efficiency of the CPOU and to explore whether data from the United States can be extrapolated to the UK.

Method—Search of the literature using Medline and critical appraisal of the validity of the data.

Results—Five studies comparing outcomes of CPOU care with routine practice showed no significant difference in objective measures including mortality or missed pathology. Eleven studies described outcomes of a cohort of CPOU patients. Follow up was comprehensive and demonstrated no clinically significant evidence of missed pathology. Nine studies comparing CPOU costs with routine care demonstrated impressive cost savings that were more modest when randomised comparisons were made.

Conclusion—CPOU care is safe and costs are well defined. There is no strong evidence that a CPOU will improve outcomes if routine practice is good. Cost savings have been shown when compared with routine care in the United States but may not be reproduced the UK.

     

Review: Contextual factors influencing pain response to heelstick procedures in preterm infants: What do we know? A systematic review

Major efforts to develop objective measurement tools for neonatal pain assessment have been made. However, the challenge of measuring pain in neonates remains suggesting that contextual factors (cFs) might alter their responses to pain. Although the role of cFs is increasingly discussed as crucial for pain assessment, they are not well described in the literature and are rarely considered in the clinical setting despite their importance. Aim: To systematically examine studies investigating the impact of cFs on pain response in preterm infants. Method: A literature search was undertaken for the period from 1990 to 2009. Studies reporting the relation between one or more cFs and pain response in preterm infants during a heelstick procedure were considered for inclusion. Results: Twenty‐three studies satisfied inclusion criteria. The studies varied relative to their design, sample, analysis procedures, and variables examined. Six categories of cFs emerged: age, pain exposure, health status, therapeutic interventions, behavioral status, and demographic factors. The examined cFs varied in the strength of their association with pain response, although none were invariably related, as evidenced by contradictory findings. In some cases the inconsistencies appeared attributable to methodological limitations in studies. Behavioral and physiological pain responses were not always in agreement as would be expected. Conclusion: This review supports the influence of some cFs on pain response. However, the results remain inconclusive which may be, in part, related to the heterogeneity of the studies. Contextual factors need further investigation for a better understanding of the magnitude of their effect on pain response.     

Experiences of patients with acute abdominal pain in the ED or acute surgical ward – A qualitative comparative study

The Danish health care system is currently establishing emergency departments (EDs) with an observation unit nationwide. The aim of the study was to investigate patients with acute abdominal pain and their experiences upon arrival and stay in an acute surgical ward (ASW) versus an ED with an observation unit. A phenomenological-hermeneutic comparative field study with participant observation and interviews was performed. The analysis showed five themes: Waiting, being placed on the edge, taking or not taking initiative, being the object of attention and being taken seriously. The conclusion was that the ED included a multidisciplinary team with nurses, who mainly had interactions with the patients before surgical assessment. In all, it resulted in fragmentation of care and a patient experience of repetition. In ASW, focus was on assessment by a senior physician, only, and the nurses’ interaction with the patients took place after surgical assessment. In all, patients experienced long waiting times. The study shows a need to define the roles of the professionals in units receiving patients with acute abdominal pain in order to fulfil the medical as well as the experienced needs of the acute patient.     

Does use of antihypertensive drugs affect the incidence or progression of dementia? A systematic review

Background: Hypertension appears to contribute to the development of dementia. Antihypertensive drugs may play an important role in altering the incidence or progression of dementia, particularly dementia of the vascular type; however, the neuroprotective effects of these agents in other types of dementia are not well characterized.Objectives: The main aims of this review were to examine the relationship between use of antihypertensive agents and the incidence and progression of Alzheimer's dementia (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), and unspecified dementia, and to consider whether these agents may be neuroprotective.Methods: A search of the English-language literature (January 1996–August 2009) was conducted using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for publications mentioning both antihypertensive drugs and dementia. A combination of searches was performed using the following terms: antihypertensive drugs, dementia, cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's dementia, vascular dementia, progression of cognitive impairment, severity of cognitive impairment, severity of dementia, prevalence, and incidence. Searches were also performed using the names of antihypertensive drug classes. The bibliographies of all retrieved articles were reviewed for additional relevant publications. The focus was on randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case—control studies, excluding studies in animals, patients aged <45 years, drugs other than antihypertensive agents, and the role in cognition of hormones, receptors, and enzymes.Results: Sixty–five potentially relevant articles were identified from the 536 publications retrieved by the literature search. After application of the exclusion criteria, 12 original studies were included in the review, all published between 1999 and 2008 and most involving patients with AD or VaD. The most frequently studied antihypertensive agents were calcium channel blockers (7 studies), diuretics (6 studies), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (6 studies). Overall, these medications appeared to be beneficial in dementia, but only ACE inhibitors and diuretics significantly reduced the risk for and progression of dementia in the majority of studies.Conclusions: Antihypertensive medications—particularly ACE inhibitors and diuretics—may be helpful in reducing the risk for and progression of dementia. Large randomized clinical trials are warranted to further explore the relationship between antihypertensive drugs and dementia.     

What is the quality of the implemented meta-analytic procedures in chronic pain treatment meta-analyses?

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis (MA) is the application of quantitative techniques for the purposes of summarizing data from individual studies. This type of review has many advantages over traditional reviews. However, different investigators performing MAs on the same data set have reached different conclusions. These reliability problems have been attributed to differences in the quality of the implemented meta-analytic procedures. We, therefore, examined the chronic pain treatment meta-analytic literature for MA procedure quality and for the consistency of conclusions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOME MEASURES: Chronic pain treatment MAs were isolated according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data from these MAs were abstracted into structured tables. Table format reflected eight meta-analytic procedures identified previously as being important to MA implementation quality. These were: adequacy of retrieval, publication bias, inclusion/exclusion criteria, abstraction of data, quality, homogeneity/heterogeneity, independence, and statistical versus clinical interpretation. Each meta-analytic procedure was then independently rated by two raters. Rating results were then analyzed by procedure for each individual MA for percentage scores out of 100%, and mean scores. For MAs addressing the same topic area (pain facility treatment, antidepressant treatment, manipulation treatment) direction of effect size was noted. Mean effect sizes were calculated for these subgroups. RESULTS: Sixteen chronic pain treatment MAs fulfilled inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean procedure ratings indicated that four procedures may not be implemented adequately. These were publication bias, abstraction of data, quality, and homogeneity/heterogeneity. There was wide MA implementation score variability, with 37.5% scoring less than 50%. The effect sizes of the MA subgroups demonstrated replicate nonvariability. CONCLUSIONS: Some meta-analytic procedures could be interpreted to be implemented inadequately in some chronic pain treatment MAs. There is wide variability between individual chronic pain treatment MAs on adequacy of implementation of these procedures. However, the effect sizes of the different MA subgroups demonstrated consistency. This finding indicates that for these MA subgroups, MA results are consistent between authors. In addition, chronic pain MAs, as compared with other groups of MAs, appear to address some of the procedures in a more adequate fashion. Future chronic pain MAs should concentrate on improving the quality of their methods with particular emphasis on the above four procedures. Because of potential validity problems with these results, these data cannot and should not be used to make administrative decisions about previous MAs.     

Can we predict poor recovery from recent-onset nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

This systematic review of prospective cohort studies investigated the evidence for prognostic factors for poor recovery in recent-onset nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). Medline, Cinahl, Embase, PsychINFO, and AMED databases were searched and citation tracking was performed. Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria. Bivariate and multivariable prognostic factor/outcome associations were extracted. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and method quality assessment. Where data were available, odds ratios for bivariate associations were calculated and meta-analysis was performed on comparable prognostic factor/outcome associations. Despite the number of studies that have investigated these prognostic factors, uncertainty remains regarding which factors are associated with particular outcomes, the strength of those associations and the extent of confounding between prognostic factors. This uncertainty is the result of the disparate methods that have been used in these investigations, incomplete and contradictory findings, and an inverse relationship between study quality and the reported strength of these associations. The clinical implication is that the formation of clinically useful predictive models remains dependent on further high-quality research. The research implications are that subsequent studies can use the findings of this review to inform prognostic factor selection, and that prognostic studies would ideally be designed to enhance the capacity for findings to be pooled with those of other studies.     

Is there evidence to use kinematic/kinetic measures clinically in low back pain patients? A systematic review

BackgroundCurrently, there is a widespread reliance on self-reported questionnaires to assess low back pain patients. However, it has been suggested that objective measures of low back pain patients' functional status should be used to aid clinical assessment. The aim of this study is to systematically review which kinematic /kinetic parameters have been used to assess low back pain patients against healthy controls and to propose clinical kinematic/kinetic measures.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies. Reference lists of selected studies and hand searches were performed. Studies had to compare people with and without non-specific low back pain while performing functional tasks and report body segment/joint kinematic and/or kinetic data. Two reviewers independently identified relevant papers.FindingsSixty-two studies were included. Common biases identified were lack of assessor blinding and sample size calculation, use of samples of convenience, and poor experimental protocol standardization. Studies had small sample sizes. Range of motion maneuvers were the main task performed (33/62). Kinematic/kinetic data of different individual or combination of body segments/joints were reported among the studies, commonest was to assess the hip joint and lumbar segment motion (13/62). Only one study described full body movement. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion. Statistically significant differences between controls and low back pain groups were reported for different outcomes among the studies. Moreover, when the same outcome was reported disagreements were noted.InterpretationThe literature to date offers limited and inconsistent evidence of kinematic/kinetic measures in low back pain patients that could be used clinically.     

Inequalities in the early treatment of women and men with acute chest pain?

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify sex differences in the early chain of care for patients with chest pain.

Design

This is a retrospective study performed at 3 centers including all patients admitted to the emergency department because of chest pain, during a 3-month period in 2008, in the municipality of Göteborg. Chest pain or discomfort in the chest was the only inclusion criterion. There were no exclusion criteria.

Data Sources

Data were retrospectively collected from ambulance and medical records and electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography, and laboratory databases.

Main Findings

A total of 2588 visits (1248 women and 1340 men) made by 2393 patients were included.When adjusting for baseline variables, female sex was significantly associated with a prolonged delay time (defined as above median) between (a) admission to hospital and admission to a hospital ward (odds ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.03), (b) first physical contact and first dose of aspirin (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.30-3.82), and (c) admission to hospital and coronary angiography (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.29-5.13).Delay time to the first ECG recording did not differ significantly between women and men.

Principal Conclusions

Among patients hospitalized due to chest pain, when adjusting for differences at baseline, female sex was associated with a prolonged delay time until admission to a hospital ward, to administration of aspirin, and to performing a coronary angiography. There was no difference in delay to the first ECG recording.