Throughout human history, infection has been the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with pain being one of the cardinal warning signs. However, in a substantial percentage of cases, pain can persist after resolution of acute illness, manifesting as neuropathic, nociplastic (eg, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome), or nociceptive pain. Mechanisms by which acute infectious pain becomes chronic are variable and can include immunological phenomena (eg, bystander activation, molecular mimicry), direct microbe invasion, central sensitization from physical or psychological triggers, and complications from treatment. Microbes resulting in a high incidence of chronic pain include bacteria such as the Borrelia species and Mycobacterium leprae, as well as viruses such as HIV, SARS-CoV-2 and herpeses. Emerging evidence also supports an infectious cause in a subset of patients with discogenic low back pain and inflammatory bowel disease. Although antimicrobial treatment might have a role in treating chronic pain states that involve active infectious inflammatory processes, their use in chronic pain conditions resulting from autoimmune mechanisms, central sensitization and irrevocable tissue (eg, arthropathy, vasculitis) or nerve injury, are likely to cause more harm than benefit. This review focuses on the relation between infection and chronic pain, with an emphasis on common viral and bacterial causes.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been utilized for over 50 years with accumulating evidence of efficacy in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The level and strength of evidence supporting the use of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to synthesize data from prospective studies on the efficacy of PNS for neuropathic pain as it pertains to pain intensity, neurological deficits/neuropathy (e.g., weakness, sensory deficits, gait/balance), and other secondary outcomes (quality of life, satisfaction, emotional functioning, and adverse events). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this review identified articles from MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Overall, per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, pooled results demonstrate very low quality or low quality of evidence supporting modest to substantial improvement in pain and neurological function after PNS implantation for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. PNS for phantom limb pain was the only indication that had moderate level evidence. Future prospective and well-powered studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain.

Chronic pain is the leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide, by a large margin, affecting 20-34% of the world's population. Chronic pain is the target for an increasing number of invasive and expensive treatments, supported by different levels of evidence. At a time when personalised medicine, driven in part by the growth of artificial intelligence, is surging, a scoping review on the factors that affect pain outcomes for procedural interventions is needed. A scoping review is important because placebo controlled trials for the most commonly used treatments consistently show small-to-moderate effect sizes of <0.5 that are often overshadowed by the placebo effect. In this article, personal characteristics, and social and clinical factors that influence surgical and non-surgical procedure pain and functional outcomes are reviewed, their intersectionality is briefly explored, and the evidence base for how dealing with these factors can influence outcomes is outlined.

Background A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. Objective To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. Evidence review An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. Findings Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered “high” quality, three “low” quality, and 19 “critically low” quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI −0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β −0.168; 95% CI −0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320). According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). Conclusions The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023431155.