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.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies which assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators on pain-associated behavioural outcomes in animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain. In April 2019, we systematically searched 3 online databases and used crowd science and machine learning to identify studies for inclusion. We calculated a standardised mean difference (SMD) effect size for each comparison and performed a random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design characteristics and reporting of mitigations to reduce the risk of bias. We meta-analysed 374 studies in which 171 interventions were assessed for antinociceptive efficacy in rodent models of pathological or injury-related pain. Most experiments were conducted in male animals (86 %). Antinociceptive efficacy was most frequently measured by attenuation of hypersensitivity to evoked limb withdrawal. Selective CB₁, CB₂, non-selective cannabinoid receptor agonists (including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; THC), and PPAR-alpha agonists (predominantly palmitoylethanolamide; PEA) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in a broad range of inflammatory and neuropathic pain models. Fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) inhibitors and cannabidiol (CBD) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in neuropathic pain models but yielded mixed results in inflammatory pain models. The reporting of criteria to reduce the risk of bias was low, therefore the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The value of future studies could be enhanced by improving the reporting of methodological criteria, the clinical relevance of the models and behavioural assessments. Notwithstanding, the evidence supports the hypothesis of cannabinoid-induced analgesia.

Pain education is a popular treatment approach for persistent pain that involves learning a variety of concepts about pain (ie, target concepts), which is thought to be an important part of recovery. Yet, little is known about what patients value learning about pain. A mixed-methods survey was conducted to identify pain concepts that were valued by people with persistent pain who improved after a pain science education intervention. An online survey was distributed to 123 people who were treated for persistent pain with a pain science education approach; responses of participants who self-identified as “improved” were analysed. Open-ended survey questions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and close-ended questions were analysed for frequency of responses. Each question-type was analysed separately, before integration for complementarity. We analysed the data of 97 participants. We constructed 3 themes from the open-ended questions. Pain does not mean my body is damaged (theme 1) captured the importance of abandoning preexisting ideas that pain indicated damage. Thoughts, emotions and experiences affect pain (theme 2) captured the value of recognising multifactorial influences on pain. I can retrain my overprotective pain system (theme 3) captured the importance of conceptualising pain as a heightened protective response that could be lessened. Responses from close-ended questions confirmed that the target concepts represented by these themes are among those most valued, although divergence with the qualitative data suggests differences between patient and clinician language. These data offer patient-centred conceptualizations and language that could assist in further refining pain education interventions.

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference −26.1 (95% confidence intervals −34.0 to −18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (−26.1 (−38.5 to −13.6)), pregabalin (−24.7 (−34.6 to −14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019145257