OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we have only included one small and very low-quality trial, with a high risk of bias across several domains, we are unable to conclude whether TENS is harmful or beneficial for managing pain in people with SCD. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, RCT to evaluate the role of TENS in managing pain in people with SCD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect."
DISCUSSION: Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.
METHODS: Forty-three participants (23 asymptomatic and 20 with CNP) underwent neck proprioception testing, returning to a NHP and THP in both sitting and standing positions (six trials for each test). A laser pointer was secured on the participant's forehead and inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors were placed beneath the laser pointer and at the level of the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra. Both the absolute and the constant JPE were assessed.
FINDINGS: For the asymptomatic participants, good reliability (ICC: 0.79) was found only for right rotation of the THP task in sitting. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found in flexion for the THP task. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found for right rotation of the THP for the absolute JPE and left rotation (ICC: 0.85) for the constant error of the NHP task. In those with CNP, when tested in sitting, good reliability was found for flexion (ICC: 0.8) for the absolute JPE and good reliability (ICC range: 0.8-0.84) was found for flexion, extension, and right rotation for the constant JPE. In standing, good reliability (ICC range: 0.81-0.88) was found for flexion, and rotation for the absolute JPE. The constant JPE showed good reliability (ICC: 0.85) for right rotation and excellent reliability (ICC: 0.93) for flexion. Validity was weak to strong (r range: 0.26-0.83) and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.47-0.93) for absolute and constant error respectively, when tested in sitting. In standing, the validity was weak to very strong (0.38-0.96) for the absolute JPE and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.54-0.92) for the constant JPE.
CONCLUSION: The reliability of the measure of JPE when tested in sitting and standing in both groups showed good reliability, but not for all movements. The results of the current study also showed that the laser pointer correlated well with the Noraxon IMUs, but not for all movements. The results of the current study support the use of the JPE using a laser pointer in clinical and research settings.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on post-bariatric surgery patients who underwent laparoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of chronic abdominal pain at a single academic center. Only patients with both negative preoperative CT scan and upper endoscopy were included.
RESULTS: Total of 35 post-bariatric surgery patients met the inclusion criteria, and all had history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Twenty out of 35 patients (57%) had positive findings on diagnostic laparoscopy including presence of adhesions (n = 12), chronic cholecystitis (n = 4), mesenteric defect (n = 2), internal hernia (n = 1), and necrotic omentum (n = 1). Two patients developed post-operative complications including a pelvic abscess and an abdominal wall abscess. Overall, 15 patients (43%) had symptomatic improvement after laparoscopy; 14 of these patients had positive laparoscopic findings requiring intervention (70% of the patients with positive laparoscopy). Conversely, 20 (57%) patients required long-term medical treatment for management of chronic abdominal pain.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic laparoscopy, which is a safe procedure, can detect pathological findings in more than half of post-bariatric surgery patients with chronic abdominal pain of unknown etiology. About 40% of patients who undergo diagnostic laparoscopy and 70% of patients with positive findings on laparoscopy experience significant symptom improvement. Patients should be informed that diagnostic laparoscopy is associated with no symptom improvement in about half of cases.
METHODS: Men diagnosed with CPPS and ED (n = 50) were prescribed with LSWT. The LSWT was administered in 10 sessions over the course of 5 weeks at 3,000 pulses with .25 mJ/mm2 energy flow and 5 Hz frequency. Outcome parameters were measured before and after LSWT.
RESULTS: Clinical symptoms related to CPPS and ED were measured using four validated questionnaires namely National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM). The effect of LSWT on each of the three domains of NIH-CPSI, namely Pain, Symptoms, and Quality of Life (QoL) were also analyzed. Uroflowmetry was measured to assess LSWT effect on urine voiding. The mean baseline CPPS symptoms on NIH-CPSI domains of pain, symptoms and QoL were 9.92 ± 5.72 (mean ± SD), 5.14 ± 14.5, and 8.02 ± 3.17, respectively. LSWT resulted in significant reduction of CPPS symptoms on all NIH-CPSI domains (Pain = .9 ± 1.37; Symptoms = .74 ± 1.03; QoL = 1.16 ± 1.78). The baseline means of CPPS symptoms on IIEF, IPSS, and SHIM were 45.42 ± 16.24, 24.68 ± 9.28, and 14.28 ± 6.02, respectively. LSWT significant improved CPPS symptoms on IIEF (49.48 ± 28.30) and IPSS (9.04 ± 7.01) but not on SHIM (16.02 ± 9.85). No statistically significant differences were observed with all uroflowmetry parameters.
CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrated for the first time the safety and efficacy of LSWT administered in 10 sessions over 5 weeks in improving symptoms of CPPS and ED without causing any significant adverse effect to the patient.
Materials and Methods: Data of five strong opioids consumption (morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, pethidine, and methadone) between 2005 and 2014 from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam were extracted from the Pain and Policy Studies Group. Defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DDD/1000 inhabitants/day) was used for calculating the annual amount of opioid use.
Results: The total consumption of five strong opioids was increased in all five Southeast Asian countries during a 10-year study period. Malaysia was recorded with the largest increase of the opioid consumption (993.18%), followed by Indonesia (530.34%), Vietnam (170.17%), Singapore (116.16%), and Thailand (104.66%). Malaysia also had the highest total strong opioid consumption (11.2 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day), primarily for methadone. Among the opioids used for pain management, fentanyl was primarily used in Malaysia and Singapore but the greatest increase in these two countries was for oxycodone. Fentanyl was also primarily used in Indonesia while morphine was predominantly used in Thailand and Vietnam.
Conclusion: Growing trends of strong opioids consumption in all five Southeast Asian countries demonstrated in this study may indicate improved access to opioid analgesics in these countries. Given the increasing trends, it is important to ensure that the utilization of opioids is according to the guideline to prevent the negative consequences of opioids particularly when used in chronic non-cancer pain.