Kanaan, Adel

Abstract Introduction Effective pain and anxiety management during the perioperative phase remains a challenge for patients undergoing surgeries and other invasive procedures. The current standard of care involves prescribing analgesics to treat these conditions; however, there has been recent interest in applying multimodal strategies that limit the use of these medications. One such modality is meditation, which has been shown to be effective in alleviating various physical and psychological symptoms in other settings. This systematic review aims to assess how current meditative practices affect perioperative pain and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, APA PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for all available dates. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient‐reported pain and anxiety scores using the Visual Analog Scale, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For the HADS and STAI scales, only the anxiety and anxiety‐state subgroups were reported, respectively. Results The literature search yielded 1746 articles. A total of 286 full‐text articles were screened, and 16 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of eight studies assessed pain scores after invasive procedures; five reported improvements in pain scores, and three reported no change after meditative practices. Ten studies assessed anxiety outcomes after invasive procedures: nine reported a decrease in overall anxiety levels as a result of meditation practices while one study reported no change in anxiety scores. Conclusion Data from this limited literature suggests that different meditation practices could be effective in alleviating pain and anxiety within the perioperative phase for patients undergoing various types of invasive procedures. Future prospective studies are needed to determine whether routine meditation in the perioperative setting is effective in mitigating perioperative pain and anxiety.

Abstract Background Risk of bias (RoB) tools are critical in systematic reviews and affect subsequent decision‐making. RoB tools should have adequate interrater reliability and interconsensus agreement. We present an approach of post hoc evaluation of RoB tools using duplicated studies that overlap systematic reviews. Methods Using a back‐citation approach, we identified systematic reviews that used the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies‐of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were appraised by more than one systematic review and calculated observed agreement and unweighted kappa comparing the different systematic reviews' assessments. Results We identified 903 systematic reviews that used the tool with 51,676 cited references, from which we eventually analyzed 171 duplicated studies assessed using ROBINS‐I by different systematic reviewers. The observed agreement on ROBINS‐I domains ranged from 54.9% (missing data domain) to 70.3% (deviations from intended interventions domain), and was 63.0% for overall RoB assessment of the study. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.131 (measurement of outcome domain) to 0.396 (domains of confounding and deviations from intended interventions), and was 0.404 for overall RoB assessment of the study. Conclusion A post hoc evaluation of RoB tools is feasible by focusing on duplicated studies that overlap systematic review. ROBINS‐I assessments demonstrated considerable variation in interconsensus agreement among various systematic reviewes that assessed the same study and outcome, suggesting the need for more intensive upfront work to calibrate systematic reviewers on how to identify context‐specific information and agree on how to judge it.