Background and Purpose: The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is commonly evaluated in order to assess the risk of biased estimates of treatment effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify scales used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs in health care research and summarize the content, construction, development, and psychometric properties of these scales.

People with chronic pain commonly report impaired cognitive function. However, to date, there has been no systematic evaluation of the body of literature concerning cognitive impairment and pain. Nor have modern meta-analytical methods been used to verify and clarify the extent to which cognition may be impaired. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate and critically appraise the literature concerning working memory function in people with chronic pain. The study was conducted along Cochrane collaboration and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. A sensitive search strategy was designed and conducted with the help of an expert librarian using 6 databases. Twenty-four observational studies evaluating behavioural and/or physiological outcomes in a chronic pain group and a control group met the inclusion criteria. All studies had a high risk of bias, owing primarily to lack of assessor blinding to outcome. High heterogeneity within the field was found with the inclusion of 24 papers using 21 different working memory tests encompassing 9 different working memory constructs and 9 different chronic pain populations. Notwithstanding high heterogeneity, pooled results from behavioural outcomes reflected a consistent, significant moderate effect in favour of better performance by healthy controls and, with the exception of one study, pooled results from physiological outcomes reflected no evidence for an effect. Future research would benefit from the use of clearly defined constructs of working memory, as well as standardised methods of testing.

Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis to determine whether complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is associated with a specific inflammatory profile and whether this is dependent on the duration of the condition. Methods: Comprehensive searches of the literature using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists from published reviews identified articles that measured inflammatory factors in CRPS. Two independent investigators screened titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. Studies were subgrouped by medium (blood, blister fluid, and CSF) and duration (acute and chronic CRPS). Where possible, meta-analyses of inflammatory factor concentrations were performed and pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 15 in the meta-analysis. In acute CRPS, the concentrations of interleukin (IL)-8 and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors I (sTNF-RI) and II (sTNF-RII) were significantly increased in blood. In chronic CRPS, significant increases were found in 1) TNFα, bradykinin, sIL-1RI, IL-1Ra, IL-2, sIL-2Ra, IL-4, IL-7, interferon-γ, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and sRAGE (soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products) in blood; 2) IL-1Ra, MCP-1, MIP-1β, and IL-6 in blister fluid; and 3) IL-1β and IL-6 in CSF. Chronic CRPS was also associated with significantly decreased 1) substance P, sE-selectin, sL-selectin, sP-selectin, and sGP130 in blood; and 2) soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1) in CSF. Most studies failed to meet 3 or more of our quality criteria. Conclusion: CRPS is associated with the presence of a proinflammatory state in the blood, blister fluid, and CSF. Different inflammatory profiles were found for acute and chronic cases.

Background: Despite common use of proprioceptive retraining interventions in people with chronic, idiopathic neck pain, evidence that proprioceptive dysfunction exists in this population is lacking. Determining whether proprioceptive dysfunction exists in people with chronic neck pain has clear implications for treatment prescription. Purpose: The aim of this study was to synthesize and critically appraise all evidence evaluating proprioceptive dysfunction in people with chronic, idiopathic neck pain by completing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, EMBASE, Academic Search Premier, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched. Study Selection: All published studies that compared neck proprioception (joint position sense) between a chronic, idiopathic neck pain sample and asymptomatic controls were included. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant population and proprioception data and assessed methodological quality using a modified Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Data Synthesis: Thirteen studies were included in the present review. Meta-analysis on 10 studies demonstrated that people with chronic neck pain perform significantly worse on head-to-neutral repositioning tests, with a moderate standardized mean difference of 0.44 (95% confidence interval=0.25, 0.63). Two studies evaluated head repositioning using trunk movement (no active head movement thus hypothesized to remove vestibular input) and showed conflicting results. Three studies evaluated complex or postural repositioning tests; postural repositioning was no different between groups, and complex movement tests were impaired only in participants with chronic neck pain if error was continuously evaluated throughout the movement. Limitations: A paucity of studies evaluating complex or postural repositioning tests does not permit any solid conclusions about them. Conclusions: People with chronic, idiopathic neck pain are worse than asymptomatic controls at head-to-neutral repositioning tests.