Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.Data extraction and synthesisPaired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.ResultsNinety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) −1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI −0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI −4.72 to 5.59).ConclusionsCannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020185184.

ObjectivesNeurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication.DesignA systematic review.Data sourcesCENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis.ResultsOf 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review.ConclusionsThere is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020191860.

IntroductionMany amputees experience phantom limb pain (PLP). Pharmacological management is the mainstay of treatment, but effectiveness is limited, and it is associated with significant side effects. Sensory discrimination training (SDT) is a non-pharmacological treatment for PLP. Previously, SDT required a clinician, or carer, to administer it, creating a barrier to real world use. In this trial, an automated SDT device (SP1X, 2pd Ltd, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom) for the self-management of PLP will be investigated for efficacy.Methods and analysisThe Phantom Relief is a decentralised, randomised, placebo-controlled, mixed-methods, superiority trial. Participants will take part from their own homes, using an electronic data capture tool to complete all trial documentation. Eligible, consenting individuals with PLP (intensity rated as ≥4 on a 0–10 scale; n=100) will be randomised to receive the SP1X device (intervention group) or a placebo device SP1X7 (placebo group). The first and second treatment sessions will be observed via video call to provide set-up guidance and any additional advice needed. The primary outcome measure will be the McGill Pain Questionnaire revised (SF-MPQ-2). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 3 weeks (immediately post intervention) and 3 months follow-up. Statistical analysis will be carried out by a blinded statistician (analysis of covariance model conditioning on the baseline and stratification factors). Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with a sub-sample (n=10–15) of intervention group participants. Participants will be provided with their allocated device for home use. Online video calls will be used to instruct participants on how to set up and use the device by the research assistant (RA). The RA will observe the first and second treatment sessions and provide any additional advice needed. Participants in both groups will be asked to use the device for 60 min/day for at least 15 days of the 21-day treatment period and to record device use in a study diary.Ethics and disseminationApproval has been obtained from Teesside University School of Health and Life Sciences Research and Ethics Committee, the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority, and a letter of no objection was obtained from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conference presentations and a doctoral thesis.Trial registration numberNCT04103983.

IntroductionProgress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting. This impedes data aggregation and outcome comparison across studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined ‘what’ should be measured in DCM: the next step of this initiative is to determine ‘how’ to measure these features. This protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. The process involves five phases. In phase 1, the steering committee agreed on the constructs to be measured by sourcing consensus definitions from patients, professionals and the literature. In phases 2 and 3, systematic reviews were conducted to identify tools for each construct and aggregate their evidence. Constructs with and without tools were identified, and scoping reviews were conducted for constructs without tools. Evidence on measurement properties, as well as on timing of assessments, are currently being aggregated. These will be presented in phase 4: a consensus meeting where a multi-disciplinary panel of experts will select the instruments that will form the CMS. Following selection, guidance on the implementation of the CMS will be developed and disseminated (phase 5). A preliminary CMS review scheduled at 4 years from release.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge (HBREC2019.14). Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders and the DCM community.

IntroductionMillions of people survive injuries to the central or peripheral nervous system for which neurorehabilitation is required. In addition to the physical and cognitive impairments, many neurorehabilitation patients experience pain, often not widely recognised and inadequately treated. This is particularly true for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, for whom pain is one of the most common symptoms. In clinical practice, pain assessment is usually conducted based on a subjective estimate. This approach can lead to inaccurate evaluations due to the influence of numerous factors, including emotional or cognitive aspects. To date, no objective and simple to use clinical methods allow objective quantification of pain and the diagnostic differentiation between the two main types of pain (nociceptive vs neuropathic). Wearable technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to bridge this gap by continuously monitoring patients’ health parameters and extracting meaningful information from them. Therefore, we propose to develop a new automatic AI-powered tool to assess pain and its characteristics during neurorehabilitation treatments using physiological signals collected by wearable sensors.Methods and analysisWe aim to recruit 15 participants suffering from MS undergoing physiotherapy treatment. During the study, participants will wear a wristband for three consecutive days and be monitored before and after their physiotherapy sessions. Measurement of traditionally used pain assessment questionnaires and scales (ie, painDETECT, Doleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, EuroQoL-5-dimension-3-level) and physiological signals (photoplethysmography, electrodermal activity, skin temperature, accelerometer data) will be collected. Relevant parameters from physiological signals will be identified, and AI algorithms will be used to develop automatic classification methods.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the local Ethical Committee (285-2022-SPER-AUSLBO). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. The results will be disseminated through contributions to international conferences and scientific journals, and they will also be included in a doctoral dissertation.Trial registration numberNCT05747040.

IntroductionTreatment for abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) remains challenging in the setting of central nervous system sensitisation, a phenomenon of remodelling and neuronal hyperexcitability resulting from persistent pain stimuli. This is suspected to render affected individuals less likely to respond to conventional therapies. Endotherapy or surgical decompression is offered to patients with pancreatic duct obstruction. However, the response to treatment is unpredictable. Pancreatic quantitative sensory testing (P-QST), an investigative technique of standardised stimulations to test the pain system in CP, has been used for phenotyping patients into three mutually exclusive groups: no central sensitisation, segmental sensitisation (pancreatic viscerotome) and widespread hyperalgesia suggestive of supraspinal central sensitisation. We will test the predictive capability of the pretreatment P-QST phenotype to predict the likelihood of pain improvement following invasive treatment for painful CP.Methods and analysisThis observational clinical trial will enrol 150 patients from the University of Pittsburgh, Johns Hopkins and Indiana University. Participants will undergo pretreatment phenotyping with P-QST. Treatment will be pancreatic endotherapy or surgery for clearance of painful pancreatic duct obstruction. Primary outcome: average pain score over the preceding 7 days measured by Numeric Rating Scale at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes will include changes in opioid use during follow-up, and patient-reported outcomes in pain and quality of life at 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory outcomes will include creation of a model for individualised prediction of response to invasive treatment.Ethics and disseminationThe trial will evaluate the ability of P-QST to predict response to invasive treatment for painful CP and develop a predictive model for individualised prediction of treatment response for widespread use. This trial was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Data and results will be reported and disseminated in conjunction with National Institutes of Health policies.Trial registration numberNCT04996628.

IntroductionSciatica is a common condition and is associated with higher levels of pain, disability, poorer quality of life, and increased use of health resources compared with low back pain alone. Although many patients recover, a third develop persistent sciatica symptoms. It remains unclear, why some patients develop persistent sciatica as none of the traditionally considered clinical parameters (eg, symptom severity, routine MRI) are consistent prognostic factors.The FORECAST study (factors predicting the transition from acute to persistent pain in people with ‘sciatica’) will take a different approach by exploring mechanism-based subgroups in patients with sciatica and investigate whether a mechanism-based approach can identify factors that predict pain persistence in patients with sciatica.Methods and analysisWe will perform a prospective longitudinal cohort study including 180 people with acute/subacute sciatica. N=168 healthy participants will provide normative data. A detailed set of variables will be assessed within 3 months after sciatica onset. This will include self-reported sensory and psychosocial profiles, quantitative sensory testing, blood inflammatory markers and advanced neuroimaging. We will determine outcome with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and a Numerical Pain Rating Scale for leg pain severity at 3 and 12 months.We will use principal component analysis followed by clustering methods to identify subgroups. Univariate associations and machine learning methods optimised for high dimensional small data sets will be used to identify the most powerful predictors and model selection/accuracy.The results will provide crucial information about the pathophysiological drivers of sciatica symptoms and may identify prognostic factors of pain persistence.Ethics and disseminationThe FORECAST study has received ethical approval (South Central Oxford C, 18/SC/0263). The dissemination strategy will be guided by our patient and public engagement activities and will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, social media and podcasts.Trial registration numberISRCTN18170726; Pre-results.

BackgroundAn endogenous pain modulation profile, reflecting antinociceptive and pronociceptive mechanisms, may help to direct management by targeting the involved pain mechanism. For individuals with cervicogenic headache (CeH), the characteristics of such profiles were never investigated. However, the individual nature of experiencing pain demands profiling within a multidimensional framework including psychosocial lifestyle characteristics. The objective of the current protocol is to assess the pain modulation profile, which includes psychosocial lifestyle characteristics among people with CeH.Methods and analysisA protocol is described to map pain modulation profiles in people with CeH. A cross-sectional non-randomised experimental design will be used to assess feasibility of mapping these profiles. The pain modulation profile is composed based on results on the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Headache Impact Test and on responses to temporal summation of pain (pinprick), conditioned pain modulation and widespread hyperalgesia (mechanical pressure pain threshold and cuff algometry). Primary analyses will report results relating to outcomes on feasibility. Secondary analyses will involve an analysis of proportions (%) of the different psychosocial lifestyle profiles and pain profiles.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven (Registration number B3222024001434) on 30 May 2024. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at scientific conferences and, through press releases. Protocol V.3. protocol date: 3 June 2024.

IntroductionSciatica is a debilitating condition that often becomes chronic, and for which there are few effective treatment options. Treatments such as the anti-depressant duloxetine have shown promise, but the evidence is inconclusive. We are describing a high quality, definitive trial to investigate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic sciatica.Methods and analysisThe duloxetine for chronic sciatica (DREAM) trial is a randomised, superiority, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded (participant, clinician, assessor) trial with an adaptive group sequential design investigating the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in participants with chronic sciatica of at least 3 months duration. Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to duloxetine or placebo. 332 participants will be recruited on presentation to general practices, specialist clinics and hospital emergency departments or from hospital in-patient wards and from the community. In the active treatment group, participants will receive duloxetine 60 mg per day for 12 weeks, including 1 week of titration at 30 mg/day. The treatment phase will be followed by a 2-week tapering phase where they will receive duloxetine 30 mg/day. Participants will be followed-up for 1 year, with outcomes being measured 4, 8, 12, 16, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is leg pain intensity at 12 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include back pain intensity, disability, time to recovery, quality of life, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance. Adverse events will be recorded, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be disseminated by publications, conference presentations and via the media.Trial registration numberACTRN12624000919516.

IntroductionPatients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLBPr) are sometimes referred to a specialised pain clinic for a precise diagnosis based, for example, on a diagnostic selective nerve root block. Possible interventions are therapeutic selective nerve root block or pulsed radiofrequency. Central pain sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans and therefore the term ‘human assumed central sensitisation’ (HACS) is proposed. The possible existence and degree of sensitisation associated with pain mechanisms assumed present in the human central nervous system, its role in the chronification of pain and its interaction with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are largely unknown in patients with CLBPr. The aim of quantitative sensory testing (QST) is to estimate quantitatively the presence of HACS and accumulating evidence suggest that a subset of patients with CLBPr have facilitated responses to a range of QST tests.The aims of this study are to identify HACS in patients with CLBPr, to determine associations with the effect of selective nerve root blocks and compare outcomes of HACS in patients to healthy volunteers.Methods and analysisA prospective observational study including 50 patients with CLBPr. Measurements are performed before diagnostic and therapeutic nerve root block interventions and at 4 weeks follow-up. Data from patients will be compared with those of 50 sex-matched and age-matched healthy volunteers. The primary study parameters are the outcomes of QST and the Central Sensitisation Inventory. Statistical analyses to be performed will be analysis of variance.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, approved this study (dossier NL60439.042.17). The results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.Trial registration numberNTR NL6765.