Pain
-
Placebos and their beneficial clinical and psychological effects are well-researched, but nocebo effects receive far less attention, despite being highly undesirable. The aim of this restricted scoping review was to examine how nocebo effects are represented in the biomedical literature and to identify the trends and gaps in existing knowledge. After searching 5 biomedical databases and 2 clinical trials registries (from their inception to December 23, 2020) for articles on nocebo effects or negative placebo effects, 1161 eligible publications were identified. ⋯ The nocebo effect was most frequently investigated in the context of pain. Studies were almost exclusively in adults and more often in healthy participants than in patients. In conclusion, in the biomedical literature, there is an overabundance of nonsystematic reviews and expert opinions and a lack of primary research and high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically dealing with nocebo effects.
-
Multicenter Study
Follow up of pain reported by children undergoing outpatient surgery using a smartphone application: AlgoDARPEF multicenter descriptive prospective study.
In pediatric patients, pain remains the most common complaint after surgery. This French multicenter epidemiological study (AlgoDARPEF) aimed to evaluate the use of a smartphone application (App) to assess the duration and severity of pain experienced by children undergoing outpatient surgery. Children younger than 18 years scheduled for an elective outpatient procedure in one of the participating centers were eligible. ⋯ This study shows that inviting parents to use a smartphone App to assess and report the quality of postoperative management in pediatric patients provides useful information. A continuous report regarding pain and adverse events over a 10-day postoperative period by a self-reporting or parent's contribution is possible. Future studies should investigate the ability of live data collection using an App to ensure fast, efficient interactions between patients and physicians.
-
This study investigated the association between serological biomarkers at hospital admission with the development of long-term post-COVID pain symptoms in previously hospitalized coronavirus disease, 2019 (COVID-19) survivors. A cohort study including patients hospitalised because of COVID-19 in 1 urban hospital of Madrid (Spain) during the first wave of the outbreak was conducted. Hospitalisation data, clinical data, and 11 serological biomarkers were collected at hospital admission. ⋯ In conclusion, the association between serological biomarkers associated with COVID-19 severity at hospital admission and the development of post-COVID pain is small. Other factors, eg, higher number of COVID-19 onset symptoms (higher symptom load) could be more relevant for the development of post-COVID pain. Because inflammatory biomarkers were not directly analyzed, they may have stronger predictive strengths for the development of post-COVID pain symptoms.
-
Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. ⋯ The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
-
What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. ⋯ More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.