The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-j4r6nt5nmj.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016

Problem: Localities and states are turning to land planning and urban design for help in reducing automobile use and related social and environmental costs. The effects of such strategies on travel demand have not been generalized in recent years from the multitude of available studies. Purpose: We conducted a meta-analysis of the built environment-travel literature existing at the end of 2009 in order to draw generalizable conclusions for practice. We aimed to quantify effect sizes, update earlier work, include additional outcome measures, and address the methodological issue of self-selection. Methods: We computed elasticities for individual studies and pooled them to produce weighted averages. Results and conclusions: Travel variables are generally inelastic with respect to change in measures of the built environment. Of the environmental variables considered here, none has a weighted average travel elasticity of absolute magnitude greater than 0.39, and most are much less. Still, the combined effect o...

/pdf/travel-and-the-built-environment-1ankek9s8z.pdf

Travel and the Built Environment

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-48d7kdjqlr.pdf

CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-176rugcvk3.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016.

Objective: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain Design: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials Participants: A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months Main outcome measures: Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments Results: Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments Conclusions: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes What is already known on this topic Disabling chronic pain is regarded as the result of interrelating physical, psychological, and social or occupational factors requiring multidisciplinary intervention Two previous systematic reviews of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic pain were open to bias and did not include any of the randomised controlled trials now available What this study adds Intensive, daily biopsychosocial rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function in chronic low back pain Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes It is unclear whether the improvements are worth the cost of these intensive treatments

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/322/7301/1511.full.pdf

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

Introduction: A systematic review was conducted to review the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions. Method: Seven databases were searched, in English and French, between January 1990 and December 2003 for peer-reviewed studies of RTW interventions provided at the workplace to workers with work disability associated with musculoskeletal or other pain-related conditions. Methodological quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by pairs of reviewers. Results: Of a total of 4124 papers identified by the search, 10 studies were of sufficient quality to be included in the review. There was strong evidence that work disability duration is significantly reduced by work accommodation offers and contact between healthcare provider and workplace; and moderate evidence that it is reduced by interventions which include early contact with worker by workplace, ergonomic work site visits, and presence of a RTW coordinator. For these five intervention components, there was moderate evidence that they reduce costs associated with work disability duration. Evidence for sustainability of these effects was insufficient or limited. Evidence regarding the impact of supernumerary replacements was insufficient. Evidence levels regarding the impact of the intervention components on quality-of-life was insufficient or mixed. Conclusions: Our systematic review provides the evidence base supporting that workplace-based RTW interventions can reduce work disability duration and associated costs, however the evidence regarding their impact on quality-of-life outcomes was much weaker.

Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature

The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review

There is ongoing interest in including grey literature in systematic reviews. Including grey literature can broaden the scope to more relevant studies, thereby providing a more complete view of available evidence. Searching for grey literature can be challenging despite greater access through the Internet, search engines and online bibliographic databases. There are a number of publications that list sources for finding grey literature in systematic reviews. However, there is scant information about how searches for grey literature are executed and how it is included in the review process. This level of detail is important to ensure that reviews follow explicit methodology to be systematic, transparent and reproducible. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed account of one systematic review team's experience in searching for grey literature and including it throughout the review. We provide a brief overview of grey literature before describing our search and review approach. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of including grey literature in our systematic review, as well as the strengths and limitations to our approach. Detailed information about incorporating grey literature in reviews is important in advancing methodology as review teams adapt and build upon the approaches described.

Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits

Background
Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function.

Objectives
To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP.

Search methods
We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used.

Selection criteria
We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education).

Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.

Main results
In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants.

Authors' conclusions
We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.

Emma Irvin

Papers

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature

The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review

Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits

Massage for low‐back pain