The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Review Meta Analysis
Differences in pain coping between Black and White Americans: A meta-analysis.
Compared with white individuals, black individuals experience greater pain across clinical and experimental modalities. These race differences may be due to differences in pain-related coping. Several studies examined the relationship between race and pain coping; however, no meta-analytic review has summarized this relationship or attempted to account for differences across studies. The goal of this meta-analytic review was to quantify race differences in the overall use of pain coping strategies as well as specific coping strategies. Relevant studies were identified using electronic databases, an ancestry search, and by contacting authors for unpublished data. Of 150 studies identified, 19 met inclusion criteria, resulting in 6,489 participants and 123 effect sizes. All of the included studies were conducted in the United States. Mean effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Compared with white individuals, black individuals used pain coping strategies more frequently overall (standardized mean difference [d] = .25, P < .01), with the largest differences observed for praying (d = .70) and catastrophizing (d = .40). White individuals engaged in task persistence more than black individuals (d = -.28). These results suggest that black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically strategies associated with poorer pain outcomes. Future research should examine the extent to which the use of these strategies mediates race differences in the pain experience. ⋯ Results of this meta-analysis examining race differences in pain-related coping indicate that, compared with white individuals, black individuals use coping strategies more frequently, specifically those involving praying and catastrophizing. These differences in coping may help to explain race differences in the pain experience.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing in adults with Chronic Pain: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Motivational interviewing (MI) has become a popular approach for increasing adherence. In this study we investigated whether MI is effective in improving adherence, and pain and physical function for patients with chronic pain. A literature search of randomized controlled trials identified 7 eligible studies with 962 participants with chronic pain. There was a small to moderate overall effect of MI on increased adherence to treatment from baseline to after intervention, but not from baseline to follow-up. Although significant short-term effects of MI were also observed for pain intensity, analyses revealed that this finding might be due to publication bias. There were insufficient studies to examine physical functioning meta-analytically, however, none of the 3 available studies showed that MI resulted in gains in physical function compared with the control group. These results indicate that MI can probably increase short-term adherence to chronic pain treatments, although publication bias cannot be ruled out. Further, it is as yet unclear whether these effects result in improvements in patient function. Although the studies were methodologically strong, they investigated MI in relation to a number of treatments for chronic pain. Future research on the efficacy of MI on adherence to evidence-based self-management interventions for chronic pain is needed. ⋯ MI significantly increased adherence to prescribed chronic pain treatments in the short term, however, effect sizes were small to moderate and publication bias was likely. MI showed some promise in promotion of adherence to pain treatments, but more research is required to confirm its efficacy.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The efficacy of movement representation techniques for treating limb pain - a systematic review and metaanalysis.
Relatively new evidence suggests that movement representation techniques (ie, therapies that use the observation and/or imagination of normal pain-free movements, such as mirror therapy, motor imagery, or movement and/or action observation) might be effective in reduction of some types of limb pain. To summarize the evidence regarding the efficacy of those techniques, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and OT-seeker up to August 2014 and hand-searched further relevant resources for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of movement representation techniques in reduction of limb pain. The outcomes of interest were pain, disability, and quality of life. Study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 reviewers independently. We included 15 trials on the effects of mirror therapy, (graded) motor imagery, and action observation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, phantom limb pain, poststroke pain, and nonpathological (acute) pain. Overall, movement representation techniques were found to be effective in reduction of pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.32 to -.31, P = .001) and disability (SMD = .72, 95% CI, .22-1.22, P = .004) and showed a positive but nonsignificant effect on quality of life (SMD = 2.61, 85% CI, -3.32 to 8.54, P = .39). Especially mirror therapy and graded motor imagery should be considered for the treatment of patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Furthermore, the results indicate that motor imagery could be considered as a potential effective treatment in patients with acute pain after trauma and surgery. To date, there is no evidence for a pain reducing effect of movement representation techniques in patients with phantom limb pain and poststroke pain other than complex regional pain syndrome. ⋯ In this systematic review we synthesize the evidence for the efficacy of movement representation techniques (ie, motor imagery, mirror therapy, or action observation) for treatment of limb pain. Our findings suggest effective pain reduction in some types of limb pain. Further research should address specific questions on the optimal type and dose of therapy.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Inhaled cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: an individual patient data meta-analysis.
Chronic neuropathic pain, the most frequent condition affecting the peripheral nervous system, remains underdiagnosed and difficult to treat. Inhaled cannabis may alleviate chronic neuropathic pain. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the use of inhaled cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of individual patient data. We registered our protocol with PROSPERO CRD42011001182. We searched in Cochrane Central, PubMed, EMBASE, and AMED. We considered all randomized controlled trials investigating chronic painful neuropathy and comparing inhaled cannabis with placebo. We pooled treatment effects following a hierarchical random-effects Bayesian responder model for the population-averaged subject-specific effect. Our evidence synthesis of individual patient data from 178 participants with 405 observed responses in 5 randomized controlled trials following patients for days to weeks provides evidence that inhaled cannabis results in short-term reductions in chronic neuropathic pain for 1 in every 5 to 6 patients treated (number needed to treat = 5.6 with a Bayesian 95% credible interval ranging between 3.4 and 14). Our inferences were insensitive to model assumptions, priors, and parameter choices. We caution that the small number of studies and participants, the short follow-up, shortcomings in allocation concealment, and considerable attrition limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the review. The Bayes factor is 332, corresponding to a posterior probability of effect of 99.7%. ⋯ This novel Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials suggests that inhaled cannabis may provide short-term relief for 1 in 5 to 6 patients with neuropathic pain. Pragmatic trials are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and risks of this treatment.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Assay Sensitivity of Pain Intensity Versus Pain Relief in Acute Pain Clinical Trials: ACTTION Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity. ⋯ The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.