Duloxetine for Postoperative Pain Control Following Knee or Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Duloxetine is a Food and Drug Administration-approved selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor for treating depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic and chronic musculoskeletal pain. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of duloxetine in reducing pain and postoperative opioid use following lower extremity total joint arthroplasty.

Methods

A literature search was performed, identifying randomized controlled trials investigating duloxetine for pain management after total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Data from the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain during movement and at rest were extracted for postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 7, and 14, as well as postoperative week 6 and postoperative month 3. Opioid use data were obtained at 24, 48 and 72 hours. All data were analyzed using inverse variance with random effects and presented as weighted mean difference.

Results

Eight unique studies were identified and included, 7 of which were analyzed quantitatively. Duloxetine decreased postoperative opioid consumption at 48 and 72 hours. For VAS for pain at rest, significantly reduced pain was reported by duloxetine-treated patients at POD 3, POD 7, and postoperative week 6. For VAS for pain at movement, significantly reduced pain was reported by duloxetine-treated patients at POD1, POD 3, POD 7, POD 14, postoperative week 6, and postoperative month 3.

Conclusions

Duloxetine appears to decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption following total joint arthroplasty. However, definitive conclusions are limited by small sample size and study heterogeneity. While there is a need for follow-up studies to determine the optimal dose, duration, and patient population, strong preliminary data provide robust support for future large-scale efficacy studies.

Prognostic Factors and Outcomes of De Novo Sinonasal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review overall survival (OS), recurrence patterns, and prognostic factors of de novo sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma (DN-SCC).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, OVID Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2006 to December 23, 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles were required to report either recurrence patterns or survival outcomes of adults with DN-SCC. Case reports, books, reviews, meta-analyses, and database studies were all excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies reported on survival or recurrence outcomes. The aggregate 5-year OS was 54.5% (range, 18%-75%) from 35 studies (n = 1903). Patients undergoing open surgery were more likely to receive radiation therapy and present at an advanced stage compared to those receiving endoscopic surgery (all P < .001). Advanced T stage, presence of cervical nodal metastases, maxillary sinus primary site, and negative human papillomavirus (HPV) status were all correlated with significantly worse 5-year OS. Direct meta-analysis of 8 studies demonstrated patients with surgery were more likely to be alive at 5 years compared to those who did not receive surgery (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.47; P < .001). Recurrence was reported in 628 of 1471 patients from 26 studies (42.7%) with an aggregate 5-year locoregional control rate of 67.1% (range, 50.4%-93.3%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the 5-year OS rate for DN-SCC may approach 54.5% and recurrence rate approaches 42.7%. In addition, various tumor characteristics including advanced T stage, positive nodal status, maxillary sinus origin, and negative HPV status are all associated with decreased survival.

No Reduction in Surgical Site Infection Obtained with Post-Operative Antibiotics in Facial Fractures, Regardless of Duration or Anatomic Location: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We performed a systematic review of the literature on antibiotic prophylaxis practices in open reduction, and internal fixation of, facial fracture(s) (ORIFfx). We hypothesized that prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) would not decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). Methods: We performed a systematic review of four databases: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBase, and Web of Science, from inception through January 15, 2017. Three independent reviewers extracted fracture location (orbital, mid-face, mandible), antibiotic use, SSI incidence, and time from injury to surgery. Mantel-Haenszel and generalized estimating equations were carried out independently for each fracture zone. Results: Of the 587 articles identified, 54 underwent full-text review, yielding 27 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 studies (n = 2,316 patients) provided data for mandible fractures, four studies (n = 439) for mid-face fractures, and six studies (n = 377) for orbital fractures. Pooled analysis of each fracture type's SSI rate showed no statistically significant association with the odds ratio (OR) of developing an SSI. For mandible fractures treated with ORIFfx, the OR for an SSI after 24-72 hours of prophylaxis relative to <24 hours was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.17), whereas for >72 hours compared with <24 hours, the OR was 1.42 (95% CI) 0.96-2.11). For mid-face fractures, there was no improvement in SSI rate from PAP (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.20-5.63). Conclusions: We did not demonstrate a lower rate of SSI associated with PAP for any ORIFfx repair. Post-operative antibiotics for >72 hours paradoxically may increase the SSI risk after mandible fracture repairs.

Relation of Patent Foramen Ovale to Acute Mountain Sickness

Over 50% of patients who rapidly ascend to extreme altitudes develop various symptoms known as acute mountain sickness (AMS), which rarely can be life threatening. It is unclear why some patients are more susceptible to AMS than others. Our objective was to determine whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a risk factor for AMS. Subjects who had hiked to altitudes above 10,000' (∼3,000 meters) on the John Muir Trail in California were recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire and 2-physician adjudication was performed in regard to AMS status. A transcranial Doppler with agitated saline contrast injection was performed to evaluate the presence or absence of PFO. The primary outcome was the development of AMS. From 2016 to 2018, 137 hikers were recruited into the study. There was a higher prevalence of PFO in hikers with AMS 15 of 24 (63%) compared with hikers without AMS 44 of 113 (39%); p = 0.034. In the multivariate model, the presence of a PFO significantly increased the risk for developing AMS: odds ratio 4.15, 95% confidence intervals 1.14 to 15.05; p = 0.030. In conclusion, hikers with a PFO had significantly higher risk of developing AMS relative to hikers without a PFO. Clinicians should consider PFO a risk factor in patients who plan to hike to high altitudes.

Measuring Scholarly Productivity: A Primer for Junior Faculty. Part III: Understanding Publication Metrics

There are approximately 78 indexed journals in the specialty of emergency medicine (EM), making it challenging to determine which is the best option for junior faculty. This paper is the final component of a three-part series focused on guiding junior faculty to enhance their scholarly productivity. As an EM junior faculty's research career advances, the bibliometric tools and resources detailed in this paper should be considered when developing a publication submission strategy. The tenure and promotion decision process in many universities relies at least in part on these types of bibliometrics. This paper provides an understanding of new, alternative metrics that can be used to promote scientific progress in a transparent and timely manner.

Scholarship in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for Junior Academics: Part II: Promoting Your Career and Achieving Your Goals

Scholarship is an important component of success for academic emergency physicians. Scholarship can take many forms, but all require careful planning. In this article, we provide expert consensus recommendations for improving junior faculty’s scholarship in emergency medicine (EM). Specific focus is given to promoting your research career, obtaining additional training opportunities, networking in EM, and other strategies for strategically directing a long-term career in academic medicine.

Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee

Introduction

Open access (OA) medical publishing is growing rapidly. While subscription-based publishing does not charge the author, OA does. This opens the door for “predatory” publishers who take authors’ money but provide no substantial peer review or indexing to truly disseminate research findings. Discriminating between predatory and legitimate OA publishers is difficult.

Methods

We searched a number of library indexing databases that were available to us through the University of California, Irvine Libraries for journals in the field of emergency medicine (EM). Using criteria from Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado librarian and an expert on predatory publishing, and the Research Committee of the International Federation for EM, we categorized EM journals as legitimate or likely predatory.

Results

We identified 150 journal titles related to EM from all sources, 55 of which met our criteria for OA (37%, the rest subscription based). Of these 55, 25 (45%) were likely to be predatory. We present lists of clearly legitimate OA journals, and, conversely, likely predatory ones. We present criteria a researcher can use to discriminate between the two. We present the indexing profiles of legitimate EM OA journals, to inform the researcher about degree of dissemination of research findings by journal.

Conclusion

OA journals are proliferating rapidly. About half in EM are legitimate. The rest take substantial money from unsuspecting, usually junior, researchers and provide no value for true dissemination of findings. Researchers should be educated and aware of scam journals.

Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the quality of the research and assess the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Conflicting data have been reported over the past 35 years regarding the reliability of spinal palpatory tests.

METHODS

The authors used 13 electronic databases and manually searched the literature from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2001. Forty-nine (6%) of 797 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Two blinded, independent reviewers scored each article. Consensus or a content expert reconciled discrepancies.

RESULTS

The quality scores ranged from 25 to 79/100. Subject description, study design, and presentation of results were the weakest areas. The 12 highest quality articles found pain provocation, motion, and landmark location tests to have acceptable reliability (K = 0.40 or greater), but they were not always reproducible by other examiners under similar conditions. In those that used kappa statistics, a higher percentage of the pain provocation studies (64%) demonstrated acceptable reliability, followed by motion studies (58%), landmark (33%), and soft tissue studies (0%). Regional range of motion is more reliable than segmental range of motion, and intraexaminer reliability is better than interexaminer reliability. Overall, examiners' discipline, experience level, consensus on procedure used, training just before the study, or use of symptomatic subjects do not improve reliability.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the research on interreliability and intrareliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable.

Searching biomedical databases on complementary medicine: the use of controlled vocabulary among authors, indexers and investigators

BACKGROUND

The optimal retrieval of a literature search in biomedicine depends on the appropriate use of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), descriptors and keywords among authors and indexers. We hypothesized that authors, investigators and indexers in four biomedical databases are not consistent in their use of terminology in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).

METHODS

Based on a research question addressing the validity of spinal palpation for the diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction, we developed four search concepts with their respective controlled vocabulary and key terms. We calculated the frequency of MeSH, descriptors, and keywords used by authors in titles and abstracts in comparison to standard practices in semantic and analytic indexing in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Multiple searches resulted in the final selection of 38 relevant studies that were indexed at least in one of the four selected databases. Of the four search concepts, validity showed the greatest inconsistency in terminology among authors, indexers and investigators. The use of spinal terms showed the greatest consistency. Of the 22 neuromuscular dysfunction terms provided by the investigators, 11 were not contained in the controlled vocabulary and six were never used by authors or indexers. Most authors did not seem familiar with the controlled vocabulary for validity in the area of neuromuscular dysfunction. Recently, standard glossaries have been developed to assist in the research development of manual medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Searching biomedical databases for CAM is challenging due to inconsistent use of controlled vocabulary and indexing procedures in different databases. A standard terminology should be used by investigators in conducting their search strategies and authors when writing titles, abstracts and submitting keywords for publications.

Spinal palpation: The challenges of information retrieval using available databases

PURPOSE

This study addressed 2 questions: first, what is the yield of PubMed MEDLINE for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) studies compared to other databases; second, what is an effective search strategy to answer a sample research question on spinal palpation?

METHODS

We formulated the following research question: "What is the reliability of spinal palpation procedures?" We identified specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and key terms as used in osteopathic medicine, allopathic medicine, chiropractic, and physical therapy. Using PubMed, we formulated an initial search template and applied it to 12 additional selected databases. Subsequently, we applied the inclusion criteria and evaluated the yield in terms of precision and sensitivity in identifying relevant studies.

RESULTS

The online search result of the 13 databases identified 1189 citations potentially addressing the research question. After excluding overlapping and nonpertinent citations and those not meeting the inclusion criteria, 49 citations remained. PubMed yielded 19, while MANTIS (Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System), a manual therapy database, yielded 35 citations. Twenty-six of the 49 online citations were repeatedly indexed in 3 or more databases. Content experts and selective manual searches identified 11 additional studies. In all, we identified 60 studies that addressed the research question. The cost of the databases used for conducting this search ranged from free-of-charge to $43,000 per year for a single network subscription.

CONCLUSIONS

Commonly used databases often do not provide accurate indexing or coverage of CAM publications. Subject-specific specialized databases are recommended. Access, cost, and ease of using specialized databases are limiting factors.

Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many health care professionals use spinal palpatory exams as a primary and well-accepted part of the evaluation of spinal pathology. However, few studies have explored the validity of spinal palpatory exams. To evaluate the status of the current scientific evidence, we conducted a systematic review to assess the content validity of spinal palpatory tests used to identify spinal neuro-musculoskeletal dysfunction.

METHODS

Review of eleven databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed literature, published between 1965-2002, was undertaken. Two blinded reviewers abstracted pertinent data from the retrieved papers, using a specially developed quality-scoring instrument. Five papers met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Three of the five papers included in the review explored the content validity of motion tests. Two of these papers focused on identifying the level of fixation (decreased mobility) and one focused on range of motion. All three studies used a mechanical model as a reference standard. Two of the five papers included in the review explored the validity of pain assessment using the visual analogue scale or the subjects' own report as reference standards. Overall the sensitivity of studies looking at range of motion tests and pain varied greatly. Poor sensitivity was reported for range of motion studies regardless of the examiner's experience. A slightly better sensitivity (82%) was reported in one study that examined cervical pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of acceptable reference standards may have contributed to the weak sensitivity findings. Given the importance of spinal palpatory tests as part of the spinal evaluation and treatment plan, effort is required by all involved disciplines to create well-designed and implemented studies in this area.