To explore the effect of rapid rehabilitation nursing model on surgical site wound infection and pain of patients with ovarian cancer. Computer searches were performed on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of rapid rehabilitation nursing model applied to ovarian cancer patients in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed), VIP and Wanfang Database from the time each database was constructed to May 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and completed an assessment of the quality of the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The database was searched to obtain 255 articles, and 22 articles were finally included, containing 966 patients in the experimental group and 954 patients in the control group, for a total of 1920 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with other nursing models, the use of the rapid rehabilitation nursing model significantly reduced surgical site wound infections in patients with ovarian cancer (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15–0.61, p < 0.001) and the rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19–0.38, p < 0.001) also reduced the patients' post-operative wound pain (MD = −0.70, 95% CI: −0.85 to −0.55, p < 0.001). The rapid rehabilitation nursing model applied to patients with ovarian cancer surgery can effectively reduce the rate of post-operative complications and wound infections, and it can also reduce the post-operative wound pain.

Background: People with suspected prostate cancer are usually offered either a local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy or a general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy. Transperineal prostate biopsy is often carried out under general anaesthetic due to pain caused by the procedure. However, recent studies suggest that performing local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy may better identify cancer in particular regions of the prostate and reduce infection rates, while being carried out in an outpatient setting. Devices to assist with freehand methods of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate may also help practitioners performing prostate biopsies. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy for people with suspected prostate cancer, and local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with specific freehand devices in comparison with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and transperineal prostate biopsy conducted with a grid and stepping device conducted under local or general anaesthetic. Data sources and methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the diagnostic yield and clinical effectiveness of different methods for performing prostate biopsies. We used pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool evidence on cancer detection rates and structured narrative synthesis for other outcomes. For the economic evaluation, we reviewed published and submitted evidence and developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different biopsy methods. Results: We included 19 comparative studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational comparative studies) and 4 single-arm studies of freehand devices. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (any method) compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.18) (n = 5 randomised controlled trials), as was the case for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 2.04) (n = 1 randomised controlled trial). Results of meta-analyses of observational studies were similar. The economic analysis indicated that local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is likely to be cost-effective compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (incremental cost below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and less costly and no less effective than general anaesthetic transperineal prostate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy: incremental cost versus local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate of £743 per quality-adjusted life-year for people with magnetic resonance imaging Likert score of 3 or more at first biopsy. Limitations: There is limited evidence for efficacy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. There is comparative evidence for the PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System (BXTAccelyon Ltd, Burnham, UK) but limited or no evidence for the other freehand devices. Evidence for other outcomes is sparse. The cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to uncertainty over cancer detection rates, complication rates and the numbers of core samples taken with the different biopsy methods and the costs of processing them. Conclusions: Transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic is equally efficient at detecting prostate cancer as transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic but it may be better with a freehand device. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is associated with urinary retention type complications, whereas local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate has a higher infection rate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy with a freehand device appears to meet conventional levels of costeffectiveness compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266443. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134220) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 60. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Aim Although Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) potentially holds efficacy in addressing functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) amongst children and adolescents, the persistent efficacy is uncertain. Methods We searched three databases to identify related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan and Stata. Subgroup analyses were mainly conducted based on follow-up time. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results A total of 14 RCTs evaluating 858 patients were included. All RCTs were rated as having a high risk of bias. Compared with control groups, CBT was associated with improvement of general functional impairment (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.12, −0.42], p < 0.05), higher treatment success (relative risk (RR) = 2.35, 95% CI [1.50, 3.69], p < 0.05), improvement of abdominal pain symptoms (SMD = −0.48, 95% CI [-0.73, −0.23], p < 0.05), QoL (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI [0.20, 0.64], p < 0.05), and psychological states (SMD = −0.95, 95% CI [-1.62, −0.27], p < 0.05). Conclusion This meta-analysis provides low to moderate quality evidence that CBT could significantly improve clinical outcomes and QoL for children and adolescents with FAPDs with improvement persisting until short-term follow-up. However, there were discrepancies regarding CBT's effects at mid- and long-term follow-up across different outcomes. More high-quality and longer-duration studies are thus warranted to explore the effectiveness of CBT in the future. Systematic review registration on prospero CRD42022369353.

Background: Pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome are conditions that often coexist, algorithms can be used to assist healthcare professionals in decision making. However, a comprehensive review is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, quality, and implementation of algorithms for the management of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in all pediatric intensive care settings. Methods: A literature search was conducted on November 29, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar to identify algorithms implemented in pediatric intensive care and published since 2005. Three reviewers independently screened the records for inclusion, verified and extracted data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the JBI checklists, and algorithm quality was assessed using the PROFILE tool (higher % = higher quality). Meta-analyses were performed to compare algorithms to usual care on various outcomes (length of stay, duration and cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, length of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of withdrawal). Results: From 6,779 records, 32 studies, including 28 algorithms, were included. The majority of algorithms (68%) focused on sedation in combination with other conditions. Risk of bias was low in 28 studies. The average overall quality score of the algorithm was 54%, with 11 (39%) scoring as high quality. Four algorithms used clinical practice guidelines during development. The use of algorithms was found to be effective in reducing length of stay (intensive care and hospital), length of mechanical ventilation, duration of analgesic and sedative medications, cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, and incidence of withdrawal. Implementation strategies included education and distribution of materials (95%). Supportive determinants of algorithm implementation included leadership support and buy-in, staff training, and integration into electronic health records. The fidelity to algorithm varied from 8.2% to 100%. Conclusions: The review suggests that algorithm-based management of pain, sedation and withdrawal is more effective than usual care in pediatric intensive care settings. There is a need for more rigorous use of evidence in the development of algorithms and the provision of details on the implementation process. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021276053, PROSPERO [CRD42021276053].

Study Objective:The role of transversus thoracic muscle plane blocks (TTMPBs) during cardiac surgery is controversial. We conducted a systematic review to establish the effectiveness of this procedure. Design:Systematic review. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, WanFang Data, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure to June 2022, and followed the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Study Eligibility Criteria:Eligible studies enrolled adult patients scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery and randomized them to receive a TTMPB or no block/sham block. Main Results:Nine trials that enrolled 454 participants were included. Compared to no block/sham block, moderate certainty evidence found that TTMPB probably reduces postoperative pain at rest at 12 h [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.51 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale for pain, 95% CI -2.02 to -1.00; risk difference (RD) for achieving mild pain or less (& LE;3 cm), 41%, 95% CI 17-65) and 24 h (WMD -1.07 cm, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.32; RD 26%, 95% CI 9-37). Moderate certainty evidence also supported that TTMPB probably reduces pain during movement at 12 h (WMD -3.42 cm, 95% CI -4.47 to -2.37; RD 46%, 95% CI 12-80) and at 24 h (WMD -1.73 cm, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.21; RD 32%, 95% CI 5-59), intraoperative opioid use [WMD -28 milligram morphine equivalent (MME), 95% CI -42 to -15], postoperative opioid consumption (WMD -17 MME, 95% CI -29 to -5), postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk difference 255 less per 1000 persons, 95% CI 140-314), and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (WMD -13 h, 95% CI -21 to -6). Conclusion:Moderate certainty evidence showed TTMPB during cardiac surgery probably reduces postoperative pain at rest and with movement, opioid consumption, ICU length of stay, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES: Behavioral eHealth interventions can enhance self-management and improve well-being in people with chronic pain. The development of these interventions calls for a user-centered approach to ensure that patient needs are appreciated. However, it may be challenging to involve patients; particularly during the early stages of the process. Fictional user profiles, known as Personas, can represent needs and guide designing eHealth interventions. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the use of Personas in the development of behavioral eHealth interventions for people with chronic pain with the aim to identify benefits and challenges. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, CINAHL) and registries (PubMed Central, medaRxiv) were systematically searched. In a double-reviewing process, n = 6830 hits and n = 351 full-texts were screened and read. Ten peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2022 were included in the narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: Ten studies reported using "Pain Personas" in the development of eHealth interventions for such purposes as to gain a shared understanding of the user and to discuss solutions in team meetings, or for patients to identify with (if Personas are included in the intervention). Personas were based on qualitative and/or quantitative data. However, the procedure for creating Personas was only described in half of the included studies (n = 5). These five studies provided descriptive details of the Personas (i.e., picture, name, narrative of their pain behavior, technological skills, and motivation). CONCLUSIONS: Although Personas have been used by pain researchers in recent projects and were highlighted as an important ingredient in the development process, available design guidelines for the creation and use of Personas are not followed or communicated transparently. Benefits and challenges when using Personas in the development of eHealth interventions for people with chronic pain are discussed to support future eHealth efforts and to improve the quality of eHealth innovation in the field of pain.

Background: Poor pain control during the postoperative period has negative implications for recovery, and is a critical risk factor for development of persistent postsurgical pain. The aim of this scoping review is to identify gaps in healthcare delivery that patients undergoing inpatient noncardiac surgeries experience in pain management while recovering at home. Methods: Searches were conducted by a medical librarian in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published between 2016 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were adults (≥18 yr), English language, inpatient noncardiac surgery, and included at least one gap in care for acute and/or persistent pain management after surgery within the first 3 months of recovery at home. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Quotations from each article related to gaps in care were synthesised using thematic analysis. Results: There were 4794 results from databases and grey literature, of which 38 articles met inclusion criteria. From these, 23 gaps were extracted, encompassing all six domains of healthcare delivery (capacity, organisational structure, finances, patients, care processes and infrastructure, and culture). Identified gaps were synthesised into five overarching themes: education (22 studies), provision of continuity of care (21 studies), individualised management (10 studies), support for specific populations (11 studies), and research and knowledge translation (10 studies). Conclusions: This scoping review identified health delivery gaps during a critical period in postoperative pain management. These gaps represent potential targets for quality improvement and future research to improve perioperative care and longer-term patient-centred outcomes. Scoping review protocol: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cq5m6/)

Background Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. Objectives To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Methods The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. Main results Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and = 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). Authors' conclusions We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined. Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%). Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

Background:This study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain. Methods:The development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results:The guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia. Conclusion:This proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

Background: Examining the emerging body of evidence investigating what drives physiotherapist's clinical decisions in the management of low back pain can guide future research into identifying barriers and facilitators of their adherence to evidence recommended interventions. Objective: To establish the body of evidence regarding factors that improve or hinder physiotherapists' adherence to high-value interventions on the management of non-specific low back pain. Design: Scoping review. Methods: We conducted a Scoping review by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases on 13 February 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved literature and selected articles for inclusion. We included quantitative research that investigated an association between physiotherapists' personal characteristics or setting related characteristics with their clinical management of patients with non-specific low back pain. Results: Twelve studies reported in 13 publications were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries including, the United States, Canada and UK. Twenty-six factors were investigated as potentially influencing physiotherapists' adherence to high value interventions in low back pain management. The most commonly examined physiotherapists' attributes were educational qualification that is postgraduate or certification course (58%, N = 7 studies), years of experience (41%, N = 5 studies), and beliefs and attitude about low back pain (41%, N = 5 studies). Work setting (N = 4) and workload (N = 3) were frequently investigated setting related factors. Conclusion: Currently, there is limited evidence available to understand determinants controlling practice behaviours of physiotherapists' management of nonspecific low back pain. Future researches conceptualized within contemporary theories of clinician behaviour change and models of knowledge translation are needed.

Objectives: The recovery after tonsil surgery is often troublesome for children and caregivers often feel insecure regarding optimal post-operative care for their children at home. The aim was to study what the current literature reports regarding the effect of post-operative telephone counselling and Internet support on pain and recovery after paediatric tonsil surgery.Method: A systematic literature review was conducted where only randomised clinical trials were included.Outcome measures: Primary outcome measure was pain after surgery. Secondary outcomes also included nausea, anxiety, children's knowledge, use of analgesics, fluid intake and health care service use.Results: Only four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous, ren-dering a meta-analysis impossible. The results of the included studies showed a possible positive effect on postoperative pain, as well as level of anxiety, use of analgesics, fluid intake and health care service use. However, the studies were few with few included participants.Conclusion: There were indications, but no definitive evidence supporting the positive effect of telephone counselling or Internet-based support on pain and recovery after tonsil surgery in children. More research is needed to further examine these effects.ClinicalTrials.gov 12/03/2017 (NCT03292068).

Objectives: The recovery after tonsil surgery is often troublesome for children and caregivers often feel insecure regarding optimal post-operative care for their children at home.The aim was to study what the current literature reports regarding the effect of post-operative telephone counselling and Internet support on pain and recovery after paediatric tonsil surgery. Method: A systematic literature review was conducted where only randomised clinical trials were included. Outcome measures: Primary outcome measure was pain after surgery. Secondary outcomes also included nausea, anxiety, children's knowledge, use of analgesics, fluid intake and health care service use. Results: Only four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous, rendering a meta-analysis impossible. The results of the included studies showed a possible positive effect on postoperative pain, as well as level of anxiety, use of analgesics, fluid intake and health care service use. However, the studies were few with few included participants. Conclusion: There were indications, but no definitive evidence supporting the positive effect of telephone counselling or Internet-based support on pain and recovery after tonsil surgery in children. More research is needed to further examine these effects.ClinicalTrials.gov 12/03/2017 (NCT03292068).

Background: Systematic use of pain intensity scales is considered a prerequisite for treatment of pain in hospitalized children, but already a decade ago, attention was called to the lack of robust evidence supporting the presumed positive association between their use and desired outcomes. Objectives: To re-evaluate the evidence supporting the association between the use of pain scales and patient and process outcomes in hospitalized children. Design: Systematic literature review. Data sources: The online databases PubMed and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from inception to April 15, 2020. Review methods: We performed single screening of all records followed by duplicate screening of full texts of interest with a disagreement procedure in place. Studies where the authors evaluated outcomes from the use of self-report or behavioral-based pain scales in children 0-18 years in a hospital setting were included. Emergency care settings were excluded. Results: In a majority of the 32 included studies, complex interventions that included one or more pain scales were evaluated. Process outcomes (e.g., documentation) were most frequently studied. Interventions were commonly associated with improved documentation of pain assessment, while the effect on pain management documentation was inconsistent. However, improvements in process outcomes did not necessarily result in better patient outcomes. In regard to patient outcomes (e.g., pain intensity, side effects, or satisfaction with treatment), some authors reported reduced pain intensity on group level, but the effect on other functional outcomes, child and parent satisfaction, and aspects of safety were inconsistent. Methodological issues, e.g., weak study designs and small samples, biased the results, and it was not possible to determine how pain scales contributed to the overall effects since they were studied as part of complex interventions. Conclusions: Although both a theoretically founded understanding of pain and clinical experience suggest that the use of pain scales will make a difference for hospitalized children with pain, there is still limited evidence to support this notion. As pain scales have been almost exclusively studied as an aspect of complex interventions, research that determines the active ingredient(s) in a complex intervention and their joint and individual effects on outcomes that are meaningful for the child (for example reduced pain intensity or improved function) are urgently needed. Tweetable abstract: Limited #research supports association between use of pediatric #pain scales and patient outcomes @_randida @PainPearl (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

CONTEXT: Alternative pain management interventions involving caregivers may be valuable adjuncts to conventional pain management interventions. OBJECTIVES: Use systematic review methodology to examine caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in a hospital setting and whether they improve patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to April 2020. Original research on caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in hospitalized settings (i.e., any age) were included and categorized into three caregiver engagement strategies: inform (e.g., pain education), activate (e.g., prompt caregiver action), and collaborate (encourage caregiver's interaction with providers). RESULTS: Of 61 included studies, most investigated premature (n = 27 of 61; 44.3%) and full-term neonates (n = 19 of 61; 31.1%). Interventions were classified as activate (n = 46 of 61; 75.4%), inform-activate-collaborate (n = 6 of 61; 9.8%), inform-activate (n = 5 of 61; 8.2%), activate-collaborate (n = 3 of 61; 4.9%), or inform (n = 1 of 61; 1.6%) caregiver engagement strategies. Interventions that included an activate engagement strategy improved pain outcomes in adults (18-64 years) (e.g., self-reported pain, n = 4 of 5; 80%) and neonates (e.g., crying, n = 32 of 41; 73.0%) but not children or older adults (65 years and older). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., pain knowledge) were improved by inform-activate engagement strategies (n = 3 of 3). Interventions did not improve provider (e.g., satisfaction) or health system (e.g., hospital length of stay) outcomes. Most studies were of low (n = 36 of 61; 59.0%) risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions using an activate engagement strategy may be effective in reducing pain of hospitalized neonates. Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions improved pain outcomes in most adult studies; however, the number of studies of adults is small warranting caution pending further studies.

Aims To assess the effectiveness of music therapy on the quality of life, anxiety, depression and pain of patients with cancer. Design Systematic review. Data Sources Five electronic databases were searched in September 2018 for randomized controlled trials evaluating music therapy for patients with cancer. Review Methods The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Revman version 5.3 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. The outcomes were overall quality of life, anxiety, depression and pain. Results A total of 19 trials evaluating 1,548 patients were included in this study, of which 765 were in the control group and 783 in the experimental group. Compared with standard care, music therapy can significantly increase the score of the overall quality of life in patients with cancer. In addition, music therapy was found to be more effective for decreasing the score of anxiety, depression and pain. Conclusion Music therapy can improve the overall quality of life of patients with cancer, with an observed optimal intervention duration of 1-2 months. Meanwhile, anxiety, depression and pain are improved as well. Nevertheless, high-quality trials are still needed to further determine the effects of music intervention in supportive cancer care.

Context: The quality of death has increasingly raised concern because of the physical and psychological suffering of patients with advanced disease. Music therapy has been widely used in palliative care; however, its physical and mental effectiveness remains unclear. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of music therapy during palliative care in improving physiology and psychology outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials evaluating music therapy for terminally ill patients were searched and included from inception up to April 25, 2018. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0. Results: In this study, 11 randomized controlled trials (inter-rater agreement, κ = 0.86) involving 969 participants were included. The quality of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Compared with general palliative care, music therapy can reduce pain (standardized mean difference: -0.44, 95% confidence interval: -0.60 to -0.27, P < 0.00001) and improve the quality of life (standardized mean difference: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.82, P < 0.00001) in terminally ill patients. In addition, anxiety, depression, and emotional function are improved as well. However, no significant differences were found in the patient's physical status, fatigue, and social function. Conclusion: This meta-analysis study demonstrated that music therapy served as an effective intervention to alleviate pain and psychological symptoms of terminally ill patients. However, considering the limitation of the quantity of the studies included, these results would need to be further confirmed.

QUESTION: This review compares mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in its ability to improve physical functioning and reduce pain intensity and distress in patients with chronic pain (CP), when evaluated against control conditions. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: Ovid MEDLINE, EmbaseClassic+Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was physical functioning. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and depression symptoms. We used random and fixed effects (RE and FE) network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare MBSR, CBT and control interventions on the standardised mean difference scale. FINDINGS: Twenty-one studies were included: 13 CBT vs control (n=1095), 7 MBSR vs control (n=545) and 1 MBSR vs CBT vs control (n=341). Of the 21 articles, 12 were determined to be of fair or good quality. Findings from RE NMA for change in physical functioning, pain intensity and depression revealed clinically important advantages relative to control for MBSR and CBT, but no evidence of an important difference between MBSR and CBT was found. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that MBSR offers another potentially helpful intervention for CP management. Additional research using consistent measures is required to guide decisions about providing CBT or MBSR.

Objectives: The burden of pain in nursing home residents is substantial; unfortunately, many times it goes undiagnosed and is inadequately treated. To improve identification of pain in this population, we aimed to review and synthesize findings from qualitative studies that report primary barriers and facilitators to pain assessment in nursing home residents. Design: This is a Cochrane-style systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative evidence adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to June 2018, supplemented by hand searching of references. We assessed the quality of included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Quality Appraisal Checklist. Setting and participants: We included studies conducted in nursing homes. Studies focused on nursing home residents, nursing home staff, or both. Measures: Extracted data were subject to thematic analyses and were collated and summarized into 3 groups: resident, health care provider, and health care system factors. Results: Thirty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. Resident factors had 3 subthemes: physical or cognitive impairments, attitudes and beliefs, and social/cultural/demographic characteristics. Health care provider factors had 3 subthemes: knowledge and skills, attitudes and beliefs, and social/cultural/demographic characteristics. Health care system-level factors had 3 subthemes: interpersonal factors, resources, and policy. Key barriers to pain assessment included the presence of resident cognitive impairment, health care providers' lack of knowledge, and the breakdown of communication across organizational hierarchies. Key facilitators to pain assessment included the identification of pain-related behaviors in residents, the experience and skills of health care providers, and establishing facility-level pain assessment protocols and guidelines. Conclusion and implications: Findings from this review identify primary barriers and facilitators to pain assessment in nursing home residents, highlighting key considerations for stakeholders, including health care providers, and health care policy decision makers. These efforts have the potential to improve the identification of pain in residents, and may ultimately improve pain management and residents' quality of life.

Background: Children presenting to the emergency department continue to experience suboptimal pain management. While evidence-based pain management interventions are available to clinicians, effective and sustainable practice change is yet to be achieved. This practice gap requires a collaborative approach to knowledge translation targeting systems of care. Objectives: The purpose of this review was to explore systems level change in the emergency department for improved paediatric pain management. Design: Integrative review. Data sources: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed/Medline, Dynamed, Cochrane, Scopus, Prospero and Joanna Briggs Institute were systematically searched, and clinical guidelines and reference lists scanned. Review methods: Studies were screened and selected according to the inclusion criteria, and independently appraised for risk of bias. Integrative review methodology informed data extraction and synthesis, focused on organisational context and engagement, facilitation and implementation of practice change, key components of the pain management interventions, and evaluation. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria: 18 uncontrolled pretest-posttest and two pseudo-randomised design. Study populations ranged from children with a specific presentation, to all presenting children. All studies adopted a multifaceted approach to organisational change, bundling various interventions including pain assessment tools and management protocols, clinician education, nurse-initiated analgesia, feedback and family engagement. Four studies used local systems analysis to inform interventions and two studies applied an implementation framework. Time to analgesia was the most commonly improved primary outcome. Parent and child sensitive outcomes were assessed in five studies. Interventions that hold the most promise for optimised pain management if embedded in the workplace include nurse-initiated analgesia and family involvement at each stage of pain management in the emergency department. Conclusion: The way forward is to respectfully engage all stakeholders-children, parents and clinicians-to collaboratively develop evidence-based, sustainable solutions aligned with the emergency department context. Guided by an implementation framework, future research designed to creatively translate evidence into practice and facilitate change at a systems level is a priority. Key to this solution is the integration of family involvement in pain management, considering child and family sensitive outcome measures. Effectiveness of new interventions should be evaluated in the short and long term to embed sustainable practice change. Frontline nurses are well placed to lead this transformation in paediatric pain management in the emergency department.