Flawed, futile, and fabricated-features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review

Is it premature to formulate recommendations for policy and practice, based on culture and health research? A robust critique of the CultureForHealth (2022) report

Introduction

Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.

Methods

We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).

Results

The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.

Conclusions

The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.

Narrative bias ("spin") is common in randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids for pain

ABSTRACT

We define narrative bias as a tendency to interpret information as part of a larger story or pattern, regardless of whether the facts support the full narrative. Narrative bias in title and abstract means that results reported in the title and abstract of an article are done so in a way that could distort their interpretation and mislead readers who had not read the whole article. Narrative bias is often referred to as "spin." It is prevalent in abstracts of scientific papers and is impactful because abstracts are often the only part of an article read. We found no extant narrative bias instrument suitable for exploring both efficacy and safety statements in randomized trials and systematic reviews of pain. We constructed a 6-point instrument with clear instructions and tested it on randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines for pain, with updated searches to April 2021. The instrument detected moderate or severe narrative bias in the title and abstract of 24% (8 of 34) of randomised controlled trials and 17% (11 of 64) of systematic reviews; narrative bias for efficacy and safety occurred equally. There was no significant or meaningful association between narrative bias and study characteristics in correlation or cluster analyses. Bias was always in favour of the experimental cannabinoid or cannabis-based medicine. Put simply, reading title and abstract only could give an incorrect impression of efficacy or safety in about 1 in 5 papers reporting on these products.

Use of patient-reported global assessment measures in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review and considerations

ABSTRACT

Establishing clinically meaningful changes in pain experiences remains important for clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Regulatory guidance and pain measurement initiatives have recommended including patient-reported global assessment measures (eg, Patient-Global Impression of Change [PGIC]) to aid interpretation of within-patient differences in domain-specific clinical trial outcomes (eg, pain intensity). The objectives of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of global assessment measures inclusion, types of measures, domains assessed, number and types of response options, and how measures were analyzed. Of 4172 abstracts screened across 6 pain specialty journals, we reviewed 96 clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Fifty-two (54.2%) studies included a global assessment measure. The PGIC was most common (n = 28; 53.8%), with relatively infrequent use of other measures. The majority of studies that used a global assessment measure (n = 31; 59.6%) assessed change or improvement in an unspecified domain. Others assessed overall condition severity (n = 9; 17.3%), satisfaction (n = 8; 15.4%), or overall health status/recovery (n = 5; 9.6%). The number, range, and type of response options were variable and frequently not reported. Response options and reference periods even differed within the PGIC. Global assessment measures were most commonly analyzed as continuous variables (n = 24; 46.2%) or as dichotomous variables with positive categories combined to calculate the proportion of participants with a positive response to treatment (n = 18; 34.6%). This review highlights the substantial work necessary to clarify measurement and use of patient global assessment in chronic pain trials and provides short- and long-term considerations for measure selection, reporting and analysis, and measure development.

Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High-Moderate" vs. "Low-Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

The need for robust critique of arts and health research: the treatment of the Gene Cohen et al. (2006) paper on singing, wellbeing and health in subsequent evidence reviews

BACKGROUND

This paper considers weaknesses in a study by Cohen et al. (2006) on the impacts of community singing on health. These include high demand characteristics, lack of attention to attrition, flawed statistical analysis, and measurement. Nevertheless, the study is uncritically cited, in evidence reviews, with findings taken at face value.

METHODS

Google Scholar, SCOPUS and BASE citation functions for Cohen et al. identified 32 evidence reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Eleven of these reviews, published between 2010 and 2023, focused on creative arts interventions.

RESULTS

We demonstrate limitations in the Cohen et al. research which undermine the conclusions they reach regarding the health benefits of group singing. Subsequent evidence reviews take the findings at face value and offer little critical commentary.

DISCUSSION

We consider what is needed to improve evidence reviews in the field of creative arts and health research.

CONCLUSIONS

A more robust approach is needed in reviewing research evidence in the field of arts and health. The Cohen et al. paper is not suitable for inclusion in future evidence reviews.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia and quality of review methods: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is defined as chronic widespread pain associated with sleep disorders, cognitive dysfunction, and somatic symptoms present for at least three months and cannot be better explained by another diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To examine efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS in adults reported in Cochrane Reviews, and reporting quality of reviews.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS were identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR 2022, Issue 3 and CDSR 2023 Issue 6). Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool and a set of methodological criteria critical for analgesic effects. The primary efficacy outcomes of interest were clinically relevant pain relief, improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), acceptability, safety, and reduction of mobility difficulties as reported by study participants. No pooled analyses were planned. We assumed a clinically relevant improvement was a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) between interventions and controls of 15%, or a SMD of more than 0.2, or a MD of more than 0.5, on a 0 to 10 scale.

RESULTS

Ten Cochrane reviews were eligible, reporting 181 randomized or quasi- randomized trials (11,917 participants, average trial size 66 participants). The reviews examined exercise training, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and psychological therapies. One review was rated moderate according to AMSTAR 2, seven were rated low and two were rated critically low. All reviews met most of the additional methodological quality criteria. All reviews included studies with patient-reported outcomes for pain. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of aerobic and mixed exercise training and for cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) at reducing mobility difficulties and for mixed exercise training and CBTs for improving HRQoL at the end of the intervention. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) values for a MCID of 15% ranged between 4 and 9. We found low certainty evidence that was clinically relevant for mixed exercise and CBTs for reducing mobility difficulties at an average follow up of 24 weeks. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of mixed exercise on HRQoL at an average follow up of 24 weeks. NNTB values for a MCID of 15% ranged from 5 to 11. The certainty of evidence of the acceptability (measured by dropouts) of the different non-pharmacological interventions ranged from very low to moderate and the dropout rate for any reason did not differ across the interventions or the controls, except for biofeedback and movement therapies. All the systematic reviews stated that the reporting of adverse events was inconsistent in the studies analysed (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low certainty evidence of clinically relevant reduction of mobility difficulties and of improvement of HRQoL among individuals with FMS by aerobic and mixed exercise training and by CBTs at the end of the intervention. There is low certainty evidence that CBTs and mixed exercise training reduces mobility difficulties post-treatment and that mixed exercise training improves HRQoL at follow-up by clinically meaningful scores.

PROSPECT methodology for developing procedure-specific pain management recommendations: an update

The procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) working group develops evidence-based pain management recommendations. PROSPECT methodology is unique and rigorous. However, several limitations were recognised that needed to be addressed, and several new factors were identified that improved PROSPECT methodology. The aim of this article is to present updated PROSPECT methodology for development of recommendations for procedure-specific pain management, focusing on the methodological revisions we will implement. In future, included randomised clinical trials will need to be prospectively registered on a publicly accessible clinical trials database and the study design, including the primary outcome in the registration, should coincide with that in the published manuscript. Placebo-controlled studies in which the analgesic intervention of interest is solely paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors or opioids will not be included. Studies comparing one drug in a particular class with another in the same class will also not be included. Future projects will use the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for quality of reporting of methodology and results. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will be used for grading of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. Finally, the updated PROSPECT methodology addresses several other limitations and implements new factors that all add rigour and transparency to developing procedure-specific pain management recommendations.

Perspective on salutogenic approaches to persistent pain with a focus on mindfulness interventions

In this article, we provide a unique perspective on the use of mindfulness interventions in a whole health framework embedded within the theory of salutogenesis and the concept of painogenic environments. We argue that mindfulness is a valuable tool to bridge exploration of inner experiences of bodily pain with socio-ecological influences on thoughts and emotions. We outline research from neuroimaging studies that mindfulness techniques mediate neural processing and neuroplastic changes that alleviate pain and related symptoms. We also review evidence examining behavioural changes associated with mindfulness meditation providing evidence that it promotes self-regulatory activity, including the regulation and control of emotion and catalysation of health behaviour changes; both of which are important in chronic illness. Our viewpoint is that mindfulness could be a core element of salutogenic approaches to promote health and well-being for people living with pain because it rebuilds a fractured sense of cohesion. Mindfulness empowers people in pain to embrace their existence; shifting the focus away from pain and giving their lives meaning. We propose that integrating mindfulness into activities of daily living and individual or community-based activities will promote living well in the modern world, with or without pain; thus, promoting individual potential for fulfilment. Future research should consider the effects of mindfulness on people with pain in real-life settings, considering social, environmental, and economic factors using a broader set of outcomes, including self-efficacy, sense of coherence and quality of life.

Pain through the perspective of art and creativity: insights from the Unmasking Pain project

People struggle to tell their story of living with pain and when they do it is articulated in a way that may not be understood, heard or taken seriously. Unmasking Pain is an artist-led project that explored creative approaches to tell stories of life with pain. The project was led by a dance theatre company that specialises in storytelling and emotional experiences for players and audiences. The project involved artists and people living with ongoing pain co-creating activities and environments to curiously explore "oneself", through imagination and creative expression. This article discusses insights and perspectives emerging from the project. The project revealed the power of art to make-sense of oneself with or without pain, and how art facilitates expression of complex inner experience and personal stories. People described Unmasking Pain as "explorative joy despite pain", and "a new set of rules" that contrasts with those experienced during clinical encounters. We discuss how art has the potential to improve clinical encounters and promote health and well-being, and whether artist-led activities are an intervention, therapy, or something else. Pain rehabilitation specialists from the project described Unmasking Pain as "freeing-up thinking", allowing conceptual thought beyond the biopsychosocial model of pain. We conclude that art has the potential to shift people living with pain from "I can't do, I am not willing to do it" to "Perhaps I can, I'll give it a go, I enjoyed".

Non-opioid analgesics for the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although trials are often underpowered. Network meta-analysis offers an opportunity to improve power and to identify the most promising therapy for clinical use and future studies.

METHODS

We conducted a PRISMA-NMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-opioid analgesics for chronic postsurgical pain. Outcomes included incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, serious adverse events, and chronic opioid use.

RESULTS

We included 132 randomised controlled trials with 23 902 participants. In order of efficacy, i.v. lidocaine (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17-0.58), ketamine (OR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.44-0.92), gabapentinoids (OR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.47-0.92), and possibly dexmedetomidine (OR 0.36; 95% CrI 0.12-1.00) reduced the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain at ≤6 months. There was little available evidence for chronic postsurgical pain at >6 months, combinations agents, chronic opioid use, and serious adverse events. Variable baseline risk was identified as a potential violation to the network meta-analysis transitivity assumption, so results are reported from a fixed value of this, with analgesics more effective at higher baseline risk. The confidence in these findings was low because of problems with risk of bias and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine (most effective), ketamine, and gabapentinoids could be effective in reducing chronic postsurgical pain ≤6 months although confidence is low. Moreover, variable baseline risk might violate transitivity in network meta-analysis of analgesics; this recommends use of our methods in future network meta-analyses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42021269642.

Spin and fragility in anaesthesia studies: when sirens sing into anaesthetists' ears

Spin and fragility are common in randomised controlled trials published in anaesthesia journals. Staying with the facts and addressing only the primary endpoint in the conclusion of clinical research reports might help reduce spin. Routinely reporting the fragility index, in turn, could deliver information about robustness, enhancing the transparency of positive dichotomous results. It is in the best interest of clinical research that authors, reviewers, and journals come together to reduce spin and address the fragility of randomised controlled trials.