The use of haloperidol in pain management has been a topic of interest for several decades. Haloperidol is a widely used antipsychotic medication with unique pharmacologic properties that make it a potential candidate for pain management. However, the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for pain management remain controversial. This narrative review provides a summary of the current literature on the use of haloperidol for pain management, including its pharmacology, clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, and dosing regimens. We performed a comprehensive search of the literature for this review. The most robust clinical data from the past decade suggest that haloperidol has good efficacy in the treatment of pain related to gastroparesis and migraines and has shown promise for opioid use reduction in patients with chronic pain or receiving palliative care. The overall side effect profile is excellent, with zero reported events of QT-related cardiac arrest and minimal reports of sedation and transient extrapyramidal effects such as akathisia. Dosing regimens used were heterogeneous, with most ranging from 1 to 5 mg per dose via intravenous, intramuscular, or oral route. Studies with designs that isolated the effects of haloperidol from combinations of other drugs were extremely limited. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to determine the ideal role of haloperidol in the routine clinical management of painful conditions.

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy agents, significantly impacting the daily lives of many cancer survivors. Despite thousands of articles published on CIPN, we remain no closer to a successful treatment regimen for the condition. In recent years, several new clinical trials and systematic reviews have been published, many exploring nonpharmaceutical interventions, prompting the need for a comprehensive synthesis of this emerging evidence.Methods: We conducted an umbrella review to identify and appraise the 19 systematic reviews (SRs) published in 2023 that examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for established CIPN treatment. We focused our analysis on the three most researched treatment options: oral drugs, exercise, and acupuncture. RCTs not previously synthesized together were reviewed, and effect size analyses were performed to allow readers to interpret the existing literature beyond binary p-values.Results: Our analysis of RCTs revealed the following key findings. For cancer survivors with CIPN after completing chemotherapy, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as well as acupuncture provided at least short-term relief for pain and sensory symptoms. For patients with CIPN who were actively undergoing chemotherapy, home-based balance and strength training exercises appeared to alleviate symptoms. Effect size analyses highlighted variability in treatment responses, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on p-values to assess intervention efficacy.Discussion: Through an umbrella review approach, we demonstrate that SRs are often less systematic than expected. None of the 19 SRs captured all relevant RCTs within their search timeframe. However, by cross-referencing SRs, we identified 41 RCTs across 42 publications, illustrating the feasibility of an umbrella review approach to uncover relevant trials. Furthermore, many SRs exhibited methodological concerns that limit the interpretability of their findings. Finally, we discuss multiple opportunities for refining methods and reporting in future CIPN treatment trials.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024508283, PROSPERO (42024508283).

Introduction: Women are either disproportionately or uniquely affected by certain musculoskeletal conditions but have limited access to providers of sex‐specific musculoskeletal care. Few physical medicine & rehabilitation (PM&R) residencies offer women's musculoskeletal health training, and it is unknown whether PM&R residents feel prepared to care for women's musculoskeletal health concerns.Objective: To examine PM&R residents' perspectives and experiences in women's musculoskeletal health.Design: Cross‐sectional survey developed through clinical expertise and consistent with sports medicine guidelines.Setting: Electronic survey sent to all accredited PM&R residency programs within the United States, distributed through program coordinators and resident representatives.Participants: PM&R residents.Interventions: Not applicable.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was residents' perspective of comfort with women's musculoskeletal health. Secondary outcomes were exposure to formal education on women's musculoskeletal health topics, exposure to various learning formats for these topics; and residents' perspectives on desire for further education, access to field‐specific mentors, and interest in incorporating women's musculoskeletal health into future practice.Results: Two hundred eighty‐eight responses were included for analysis (20% response rate, 55% female sex residents). Only 19% of residents self‐reported feeling comfortable providing care for women's musculoskeletal health conditions. Comfort did not significantly differ by postgraduate year, program region, or sex. However, with regression modeling, the number of topics learned formally in their curriculum had an increased odds of residents self‐reporting comfort (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.30, adjusted p value .01). The majority of residents viewed learning women's musculoskeletal health as important (94%) and requested more exposure to the field (89%).Conclusions: Many PM&R residents do not feel comfortable in caring for women's musculoskeletal health conditions despite their interest in the field. To improve health care access for patients seeking care for these sex‐predominant or sex‐specific conditions, residency programs may want to consider increasing exposure to women's musculoskeletal health for residents.

Aim: Chronic shoulder pain due to iatrogenic spinal accessory nerve (SAN) injury continues to be under-recognized, resulting in delayed time-to-diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Solutions are needed to improve the management of this condition, which can be challenging as care needs to be coordinated across pain management, neurophysiology, rehabilitation and reconstructive surgery. Cases: We present a series of six patients with shoulder pain refractory to conservative pain treatments to highlight how SAN injuries continued to be missed and treatment delayed, even at advanced care centers. The time to diagnosis of SAN palsy took an average of 21 months and treatment was inconsistent for all patients. Discussion: None of the six cases had initial suspicion of SAN palsy and only one patient received targeted SAN injury care. SAN treatment should be started as early as possible so that patients can be referred for prompt surgical evaluation if they fail conservative management. Integrated care pathways may be a solution for formalizing multidisciplinary team involvement and improving SAN injury outcomes. Conclusion: Systemic processes, such as integrated care pathways, are needed to optimize early recognition and targeted treatment of SAN injury and may be beneficial for other underdiagnosed and undertreated neuropathic pain conditions.