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."

Methods: PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched systematically with restricting the languages to only English and year (January 2001 to March 2020), and studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Study quality and publication bias were assessed by using the Robvis, a software package of R statistical software.

Results: This systematic review included 32 studies (1172 patients) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of the studies reported significant reduction of pain by the use of the laser during TMD treatment. Two-thirds of the study (78.13%) found a better outcome comparing with conventional one. According to Robvis, 84.4% of the studies were high methodological studies with low risk of bias.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To determine medications available and used in the management of six symptoms at the end of life among pediatric palliative care practitioners in Asia Pacific. To identify alternative pharmacological strategies for these six symptoms if the oral route was no longer possible and injections are refused.

DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey of all Asia Pacific Hospice Palliative Care Network (APHN) members was carried out to identify medications used for six symptoms (pain, dyspnea, excessive respiratory secretions, nausea/vomiting, restlessness, seizures) in dying children. Two scenarios were of interest: (1) hours to days before death and (2) when injectables were declined or refused.

RESULTS: There were 54 responses from 18 countries. Majority (63.0%) of respondents were hospital based. About half of all respondents were from specialist palliative care services and 55.6% were from high-income countries. All respondents had access to essential analgesics. Several perceived that there were no available drugs locally to treat the five other commonly encountered symptoms. There was a wide variation in preferred drugs for treating each symptom that went beyond differences in drug availability or formulations.

METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey conducted between September and December 2013 in 10 countries/regions across Asia. Adult patients with a history of cancer pain at least 1 month before study entry completed the survey questionnaire.

RESULTS: A total of 1190 patients were included. The mean Box Scale-11 (BS-11) pain score was 6.0 (SD 2.1), with 86.2% experiencing moderate-to-severe pain and 53.2% receiving opioids at time of the survey. The mean BS-11 scores were 5.3 (SD 2.1) in the "others" (single non-opioid medication or untreated) group, 6.3 (SD 2.0) in the ≥2 non-opioids group and 6.7 (SD 1.9) in the opioid group. The proportions of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe pain were 79.1%, 87.3% and 93.7%, respectively. About 70% of patients reported adverse events due to their pain medications, about half had received medications to manage these symptoms. Adverse events were negatively associated with activities of daily living (P < 0.0001). Pain and hindrance to activities of daily living were negatively associated with employment status (P = 0.003 and 0.021). Unemployment was significantly associated with poorer quality of life (P < 0.0001).

METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a single lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) refractory to conservative management but not willing for immediate surgery were selected for a prospective nonrandomized comparative study. An SNRB was administered as a therapeutic alternative using the AP subpedicular approach in one group (n = 25; mean age, 45 ± 5.4 years) and the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach in the other group (n = 22; mean age, 43.8 ± 4.7 years). Results were compared in terms of the duration of the procedure, the number of C-arm exposures, accuracy, pain relief, functional outcome and the duration of relief.

RESULTS: Our results suggest that the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach took a significantly longer duration (p = 0.02) and a greater number of C-arm exposures (p = 0.001). But, its accuracy of needle placement was 95.5% compared to only 72% using the AP subpedicular approach (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in terms of clinical outcomes between these approaches.

OBJECTIVE: Department of Neurosurgery Sarawak aimed to evaluate the surgical outcome of carpal tunnel release done over five years.

METHODS: The carpal tunnel surgeries were done under local anaesthesia (LA) given by neurosurgeons (Bupivacaine 0.5% or Lignocaine 2%). Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) was later introduced by our hospital neuroanaesthetist in the beginning of 2018 (Target-controlled infusion propofol and boluses of fentanyl). We looked into our first 17 cases and compared these to the two anaesthesia techniques (LA versus MAC + LA) in terms of patient's pain score based on visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS: Result showed MAC provided excellent pain control during and immediately after the surgery. None experienced anaesthesia complications. There was no difference in pain control at post-operation one month. Both techniques had equal good clinical outcome during patients' clinic follow up.

METHODS: This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics.

DISCUSSION: This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question.

DESIGN: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of blood flow restriction on patients with knee injuries. PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 until January 2020. The mean differences of the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 179 patients who received L-BFR, 96 patients who underwent high-load resistance training, and another 94 patients who underwent low-load resistance training. The analysis of pooled data showed that patients in both the L-BFR (standardized mean difference, 0.83 [0.53, 1.14], P < 0.01) and high-load resistance training (standardized mean difference, -0.09 [-0.43, 0.24], P = 0.58) groups experienced an increase in muscle strength after the training. In addition, pain score was significantly reduced in the L-BFR group compared with the other two groups (standardized mean difference, -0.61 [-1.19, -0.03], P = 0.04).

METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study that took place in a Malaysian tertiary hospital. Patients ≥ 65 years old with at least one medication on admission were recruited. The patients' prehospitalization medications were reviewed to identify PIMs/PPOs using version 2 of the STOPP/START criteria. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The association between the presence of PIM/PPO and the patients' HRQoL was analyzed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Multiple linear regression models were applied to determine the effect of exposure to PIM/PPO on the patients' HRQoL, adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS: Out of 517 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 502 patients (97%) accepted to be involved in the study and completed the HRQoL questionnaire. The mean (SD) age was 72.4 (5.9) years. 393 (78.3%) of the patients had problems in at least one EQ-5D dimension with pain/discomfort problem being the most reported complaint. The mean (SD) values of the EQ-5D index and the EQ-VAS were 0.734 (0.214) and 59.6 (14.2), respectively, which are lower than those seen in the general Malaysian population. PIM and PPO were found in 28.5% and 45.6% of the patients, respectively. No significant differences were found in the EQ-5D dimensions, EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS between patients who had PIM/PPO and those who did not. Age, sex, and comorbidities were significantly associated with the patients' HRQoL.

METHODS: A parallel-group unblinded randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients was conducted in two hospital orthopedics clinics in Malaysia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral-based group therapy (n = 150) or no further intervention (n = 150). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in knee pain as determined by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 months. The data collected were analyzed by covariate-adjusted mixed design repeated measures analysis of variance. All analyses were performed under the terms of intention-to-treat.

RESULTS: At 6 months, mean change from baseline in the KOOS knee pain score was 0.6 points (95% CI -1.73 to 2.94) in the control group and 8.9 points (95% CI 6.62 to 11.23) (denoting less knee pain intensity) in the intervention group (significant treatment effect p < 0.0001). Patients treated with such an approach also experienced significant improvement in functional ability when performing activities of daily living and had improved ability to cope with depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.