Pain
-
Central sensitization (CS) is defined as an increased nociceptive responsiveness due to sensitization of neurons in the central nervous system, usually the result of prolonged nociceptive input or a disease state associated with noxious inputs (eg, polyarthritis). The concept of CS has recently been adopted in clinical assessments of chronic pain, but its diagnosis in humans may now include a wide range of hypervigilant responses. The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether self-report questionnaires linked with CS are associated with enhanced nociceptive responses or whether they measure sensitivity in a broader sense (ie, emotional responses). ⋯ The PSQ did, however, correlate strongly with phasic heat and tonic cold pain tests. The studies reviewed did not provide sufficient evidence that self-report measures reflect a canonical understanding of CS. The CSI more closely reflects psychological hypervigilance than increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons.
-
The objective of this systematic review is to quantify the association between recovery expectations and return-to-work outcomes in adults with musculoskeletal pain conditions. In addition, this review has the second objective to compare the predictive utility of single-item and multi-item recovery expectation scales on return-to-work outcomes. Relevant articles were selected from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane, and manual searches. ⋯ Analyses also revealed no significant differences in the predictive value of validated and nonvalidated single-item measures of recovery expectations on work disability (χ 2 = 1.68, P = 0.19). There is strong evidence that recovery expectations are associated with return-to-work outcomes. The results suggest that single-item measures of recovery expectations can validly be used to predict return-to-work outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions.
-
Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. ⋯ The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.
-
Meta Analysis
The association between personality traits and placebo effects: a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis.
Placebo effects are ubiquitous yet highly variable between individuals and therefore strongly affect clinical trial outcomes such as pain relief. It is unclear whether dispositional psychological traits influence responsiveness to placebo. This preregistered meta-analysis and systematic review synthesized the literature investigating the association between personality traits and placebo effects. ⋯ We did not find evidence of associations between any of these traits and magnitude of placebo effects, which was supported by equivalence tests. Furthermore, we did not find evidence for moderating factors such as placebo manipulation type (conditioning or nonconditioning) or condition (pain or nonpain). These findings challenge the notion that personality influences responsiveness to placebos and contradict its utility for identifying placebo "responders" and "nonresponders."
-
Meta Analysis
Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. ⋯ Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.