Citations

Introduction The field of neuromodulation has experienced substantial growth, accompanied by an increase in clinical practice guidelines aimed at supporting evidence-based practice. However, adherence to reporting standards remains critical in the development of a comprehensive and transparent clinical practice guideline. This study evaluated the reporting quality of guidelines on neurostimulation for chronic pain by assessing compliance with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist and explored predictors of reporting quality. Methods A search strategy was conducted from database inception to April 17, 2024 to identify guideline articles on neurostimulation treatment (spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation) for chronic pain. Primary outcomes included the percentage of completed RIGHT and AGREE checklist items. Secondary outcomes included the identification of under-reported checklist items, predictors of reporting quality, and agreement between the two checklists. Results A total of 24 guideline articles were included, with a mean percentage of completed items being 55.12%±12.68% for the RIGHT checklist and 52.16%±10.51% for the AGREE checklist. Items that were most frequently under-reported (<25% completion) included themes of population-specific considerations, cost/resource implications, guideline limitations, recommendation development process, magnitude of benefit versus magnitude of harm, and statement of competing interests and how they were managed. Secondary analysis revealed no significant associations between RIGHT/AGREE reporting quality and journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, or guideline themes. There was good inter-checklist agreement between the RIGHT and AGREE checklists (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90), suggesting overlapping but distinct evaluation criteria. Conclusions Current guidelines of neurostimulation for chronic pain exhibit significant variability in reporting items, with notable deficiencies in the description of key methodological areas. While adherence to established checklists such as RIGHT and AGREE remains poor and inconsistent, these tools provide a critical framework for enhancing comprehensiveness, transparency, and methodological rigor in future guideline development.

Background: Periarticular local infiltration analgesia has become an important mainstay of multimodal analgesia after elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the role of novel motor-sparing fascial plane blocks—with or without periarticular local infiltration analgesia—has not been fully elucidated for patients undergoing THA. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis evaluating the relative analgesic effectiveness of motor-sparing fascial plane blocks (quadratus lumborum, erector spinae, and pericapsular nerve group blocks) and periarticular local infiltration analgesia for adult patients undergoing THA. Methods: Randomized trials examining single-injection quadratus lumborum, erector spinae, or pericapsular nerve group blocks, or periarticular local infiltration analgesia, for THA were sought. The primary outcome was area under the curve (AUC) rest pain scores during the period from 0 to 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; postoperative function at 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0 to 24 h; incidence of opioid-related side effects; and incidence of block-related complications. Network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach. Results: A total of 44 trials (3,579 patients) evaluating the quadratus lumborum block, erector spinae block, pericapsular nerve group block, or periarticular local infiltration analgesia for THA were considered. Network meta-analysis was used to derive the probability of each intervention being the most effective as compared to the others (P score). For AUC 0 to 24 h rest pain, periarticular local infiltration analgesia was the most effective intervention, as demonstrated by a P score of 89%. For postoperative analgesic consumption, the quadratus lumborum block was the most effective intervention, with a P score of 88%. This was followed by the pericapsular nerve group block (74%), the erector spinae block (38%), and periarticular local infiltration analgesia (42%). Conclusions: Periarticular local infiltration analgesia alone provides the most consistent improvements in postoperative rest pain, analgesic consumption, and functional recovery after THA. The addition of a quadratus lumborum block or pericapsular nerve group block to periarticular local infiltration may further improve analgesic outcomes.

Background: Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone have been proposed as effective adjuncts that prolong the duration of peripheral nerve blocks. The authors sought to explore whether combining systemic with perineural dexamethasone yields any additive or synergistic effect on the characteristics and analgesic effects of peripheral nerve blocks. Methods: Adult patients having distal radius open reduction and internal fixation and/or carpometacarpal arthroplasty under supraclavicular block were randomized to intravenous dexamethasone, a combination of perineural plus intravenous dexamethasone, or no dexamethasone (control). Sensory block duration was set as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included motor block duration; postoperative rebound pain scores as well as worst pain at 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, and 48 h; opioid consumption at 0 to 24 and 25 to 48 h; incidence of nausea/vomiting; and presence of burning sensation in the blocked limb at 24 and 48 h. The null hypothesis was lack of difference in sensory block duration between the three groups. Results: A total of 104 patients were included in the analysis (intravenous dexamethasone, 37; intravenous plus perineural dexamethasone, 34; control, 33). Compared to intravenous dexamethasone alone, adding perineural dexamethasone did not yield any incremental benefits in any of the outcomes examined. The mean ± SD of sensory block duration was 21.3 ± 7.3 h in the intravenous dexamethasone group, 20.6 ± 6.1 h in the perineural plus intravenous group, and 16.8 ± 6.8 h in the control group. The mean difference (95% CI) of sensory block duration was significantly prolonged by 4.5 h (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.7; P = 0.006) in the intravenous dexamethasone group and 3.8 h (95% CI, 0.8 to 6.8; P = 0.015) in the perineural plus intravenous dexamethasone group compared to control; however, no difference was observed when the two dexamethasone groups were compared to each other (0.7 h [95% CI, –2.5 to 3.9]; P = 0.670). Compared to control, both intravenous and intravenous plus perineural dexamethasone similarly reduced 24-h pain scores and opioid consumption and decreased incidence of rebound pain. Conclusions: The authors’ findings suggest that intravenous dexamethasone alone is sufficient to improve analgesic outcomes for patients receiving supraclavicular block for upper extremity surgery. Combining the intravenous and perineural dexamethasone routes does not yield an additive or synergistic effect on the characteristics and analgesic effects of supraclavicular block.

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large-language models like Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has demonstrated potential in streamlining research methodologies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, often considered the pinnacle of evidence-based medicine, are inherently time-intensive and demand meticulous planning, rigorous data extraction, thorough analysis, and careful synthesis. Despite promising applications of AI, its utility in conducting systematic reviews with meta-analysis remains unclear. This study evaluated ChatGPT’s accuracy in conducting key tasks of a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods This validation study used data from a published meta-analysis on emotional functioning after spinal cord stimulation. ChatGPT-4o performed title/abstract screening, full-text study selection, and data pooling for this systematic review with meta-analysis. Comparisons were made against human-executed steps, which were considered the gold standard. Outcomes of interest included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for screening and full-text review tasks. We also assessed for discrepancies in pooled effect estimates and forest plot generation. Results For title and abstract screening, ChatGPT achieved an accuracy of 70.4%, sensitivity of 54.9%, and specificity of 80.1%. In the full-text screening phase, accuracy was 68.4%, sensitivity 75.6%, and specificity 66.8%. ChatGPT successfully pooled data for five forest plots, achieving 100% accuracy in calculating pooled mean differences, 95% CIs, and heterogeneity estimates ( I 2 score and tau-squared values) for most outcomes, with minor discrepancies in tau-squared values (range 0.01–0.05). Forest plots showed no significant discrepancies. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrates modest to moderate accuracy in screening and study selection tasks, but performs well in data pooling and meta-analytic calculations. These findings underscore the potential of AI to augment systematic review methodologies, while also emphasizing the need for human oversight to ensure accuracy and integrity in research workflows.

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating and painful condition accompanied by sensory, autonomic, trophic, and/or motor abnormalities. Although CRPS is rare in the general population, the prevalence among individuals at higher risk, particularly posttraumatic and postsurgical patients, remains unknown. This study aims to provide a benchmark that quantifies CRPS prevalence in high-risk groups, and offers insights on potential predictors of developing CRPS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify studies reporting prevalence of CRPS after an inciting event (eg, fracture, surgery), specifically 12-month and 24-month prevalence (primary outcomes), as well as 3-month and 6-month prevalence (secondary outcomes). Estimates from individual studies were transformed using double-arcsine transformation, and the resulting estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 214 articles with data from 2491,378 participants worldwide (35 countries), of which 16,873 had CRPS. The pooled 12-month and 24-month global prevalence was 3.04% (95% CI, 2.64–3.48) and 6.46% (95% CI, 5.46–7.53), respectively. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to understand the impact of population-dependent (mechanism of injury, type of CRPS), contextual-dependent (socioeconomic status), and methodological-dependent (study design, publication year) factors. The 12-month prevalence was higher in countries with a high human development index (HDI) compared to those with a medium or very high HDI, was higher in participants with a traumatic inciting injury only versus those with surgical injury only or traumatic/surgical injury, and was higher in prospective versus retrospective studies. Meta-regression analysis showed that publication year was a significant moderator, with more recent articles reporting lower 12-month prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a benchmark of the global prevalence of CRPS, which anesthesiologists and pain specialists can use to prioritize early diagnosis and identify those at the highest risk for CRPS.

Introduction Although the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has been reported, the proportion of patients with CIPN who report chronic moderate-to-severe neuropathy or chronic painful neuropathy remains poorly understood, despite its significant impact on patients’ quality of life and treatment outcomes. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of chronic (≥3 months) moderate-to-severe CIPN or painful CIPN among patients diagnosed with CIPN. Estimates from each study were transformed using a double-arcsine transformation and pooled in a meta-analysis using an inverse variance heterogeneity model. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on geographical region, sex, chemotherapy regimen, primary cancer type, and funding source; metaregression analysis was conducted based on study design, human development index (HDI), and publication year. Results 76 studies from 29 countries, encompassing 13 635 patients with CIPN, were included. Among patients diagnosed with CIPN, the pooled prevalence of those reporting chronic moderate-to-severe CIPN or painful CIPN was estimated at 47.76% (95% CI 37.50 to 58.08; 95% prediction interval 24.68–71.84). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies ( I² =97.45%; 95% CI for I 2 97.15 to 97.72). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients treated with platinum-based agents and taxanes had the highest prevalence of chronic moderate-to-severe CIPN or painful CIPN (44.47% and 55.68%, respectively), and among primary cancers, those with breast cancer, multiple myeloma, and lung cancer reported the highest prevalence of chronic moderate-to-severe CIPN or painful CIPN (61.31%, 53.55%, and 50.85%, respectively). Study design, HDI, and publication year were non-significant moderators of prevalence estimates. Based on our Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment, the certainty of evidence was considered “very low.” Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies explicitly measuring painful CIPN (40.78%; 95% CI 29.08 to 52.74) or moderate-to-severe CIPN (49.04%; 95% CI 37.16 to 60.95) yielded similar prevalence estimates. Conclusion This study provides the first comprehensive global estimate of the prevalence of chronic moderate-to-severe CIPN or painful CIPN, highlighting its significant burden on patients worldwide. The variation in prevalence across geographical regions, chemotherapy regimens, and primary cancers underscores the need for tailored management strategies and further research to address potential disparities.