The Clinical journal of pain
-
To summarize and critically appraise the body of evidence on conservative management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ⋯ There is an ongoing need for high-quality studies to inform conservative management choices in CRPS.
-
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the association between changes in patients' pain knowledge after pain science education (PSE) with treatment outcomes in people with chronic pain. ⋯ These findings do not support a short-term association between improvements in pain neurophysiology knowledge and better treatment outcomes in people with chronic pain. Increased understanding of how PSE works, as well as better ways to measure it, may help clinicians deliver more targeted education to help patients reconceptualize pain and promote engagement in active treatment strategies (eg, exercise).
-
Meta Analysis
Traumatic Life Experience and Pain Sensitization: Meta-analysis of Laboratory Findings.
Psychological trauma often co-occurs with pain. This relationship has been explored using laboratory pain measures; however, findings have been mixed. Previous studies have limited operationalization of trauma (eg, posttraumatic stress disorder) or pain (eg, pain thresholds), which may contribute to conflicting results. Further, prior reviews likely underrepresent trauma experiences among people who are not receiving clinical care, limiting generalizability. ⋯ Findings demonstrate an overall pattern of trauma-related pain enhancement and point to central sensitization as a key underlying mechanism.
-
Meta Analysis
Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in populations with persistent pain. ⋯ Ecological momentary assessment of pain experience appears both valid and reliable. Although the levels of evidence were low or very low, these findings provide preliminary support for the use of EMA in clinical practice and research settings. Potential strengths of EMA include providing measures with greater ecological validity while also reducing recall bias, both pertinent in pain outcome measurement. More research, including higher-quality studies, is needed to demonstrate further support for EMA, including the need for establishing other types of validity.
-
A systematic review of original research articles was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lidocaine infusion in the treatment of adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain. ⋯ This qualitative review found insufficient, heterogenous evidence and therefore no recommendation can be made for lidocaine infusion treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve injury, diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or complex regional pain syndrome type II. Larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are required to further establish the efficacy of lidocaine infusion in patients with these etiologies of chronic neuropathic pain.