PainSci summary of O’Connell 2013?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
What works for complex regional pain syndrome? Certainly nothing confirmed yet. Study author Neil O’Connell, describing the results for BodyInMind.org:
“The trial evidence in CRPS is something of a mess. … To summarise our findings, using the GRADE system for assessing the quality of a body of evidence we concluded that there was high quality evidence for … nothing. Zip. … At the very best this evidence could be considered exploratory, but for making any confident judgement on effectiveness it is really better described as ‘no credible evidence.’ … The old cliché rings true: we need bigger better trials, and in CRPS we need them desperately.”
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used.
OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).
METHODS: We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.
Specifically regarding O’Connell 2013:
These three articles on PainScience.com cite O’Connell 2013 as a source:
- PS Trigger Points & Myofascial Pain Syndrome — A guide to the unfinished science of muscle pain, with reviews of every theory and self-treatment and therapy option
- PS A Historical Perspective On Aches ‘n’ Pains — We are living in a golden age of pain science and musculoskeletal medicine … sorta
- PS Why Does Pain Hurt? — How an evolutionary wrong turn led to a biological glitch that condemned the animal kingdom — you included — to much louder, longer pain
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- Effectiveness of customised foot orthoses for Achilles tendinopathy: a randomised controlled trial. Munteanu 2015 Br J Sports Med.
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.