This article presents a Delphi consensus developed by a panel of editors-in-chief of anaesthesiology and pain medicine journals to guide the responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in academic publishing. LLMs offer potential benefits for scientific writing, including language editing, summarisation, translation, information organisation, and support for non-native English speakers, but their misuse raises concerns about accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, and research integrity. Through a three-round modified Delphi process involving 53 editors-in-chief or their delegates, 59 statements were generated and categorised into guidance for authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers with a particular attention to LLM disclosure practices and perceived risks. The consensus recognises that LLMs are useful tools in academic publishing for authors, reviewers, and editors. However, their use must be guided by ethics, legality, and principles of transparency and accountability. LLMs may assist with limited editorial and authorial tasks provided that their use is fully disclosed and all outputs are verified by humans. The consensus also emphasises the inappropriateness of using LLMs to generate original or ideative content, which should remain a strictly human responsibility. Moreover, LLMs must not generate data, references, conclusions, or entire manuscripts, nor be used for editorial decisions or peer-review reports. Editors expressed concerns about 'hallucinations', erosion of critical skills, confidentiality breaches, and the proliferation of low-quality LLM-generated manuscripts. The resulting guidance highlights transparency, human accountability, and careful verification as essential principles for integrating LLMs into scholarly workflows while preserving the integrity of scientific publishing.

Background: Several meta-analyses have evaluated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy. Although they generally did not find PRP to be effective, an updated meta-analysis containing all the available, high-quality randomized trial evidence that addresses the methodological shortcomings identified in earlier meta-analyses needs to be performed. Question/purposes: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PRP in improving (1) pain and function as assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) score 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment and (2) VAS pain scores 3 months after treatment in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception until June 2024, focusing on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with placebo or other treatments for Achilles tendinopathy. Our search identified 1289 studies, of which 1262 were excluded after removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, leaving 27 studies for detailed review. Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 422 patients, with a predominance of participants who were men. Publication bias was suggested by funnel plot asymmetry, which suggested that, if anything, the results may have overstated the apparent benefit of PRP treatment. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials, revealing an overall low or unclear risk of bias. The primary outcomes were pain relief and functional improvement, assessed using the VAS, scored 0 to 10, with higher scores representing more severe pain, and VISA-A score, scored 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better pain and function. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I² statistics, and a random-effects model was applied due to substantial heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and RStudio, version 764. Results: We found no benefit in terms of VISA-A scores favoring PRP over placebo at 3 months (mean difference 1.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to 5.2]; p = 0.34), 6 months (mean difference 0.5 [95% CI [-8.5 to 9.3]; p = 0.92), or 1 year (mean difference -7.9 [95% CI -27.3 to 11.6]; p = 0.43). PRP did not improve VAS pain scores at 3 months (mean difference -0.22 [95% CI -0.56 to 0.12]; p = 0.21). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. PRP showed no difference compared with stromal vascular fraction and was less effective in the short term compared with high-volume injection. Conclusion: Until future high-quality RCTs show a clear clinical benefit, PRP should not be used to treat Achilles tendinopathy. Our analysis found that PRP does not improve pain or function compared with placebo, and potential publication bias suggests that the apparent benefits may be inflated. Surgeons should be cautious when considering PRP for this condition, and future research should focus on larger trials with standardized protocols to provide more definitive guidance. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.

Aim: This study reassesses the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP).Materials & methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO and Cochrane CENTRAL, published through August 2024. Studies compared antidepressants with placebo or active comparators. The primary outcomes were pain relief and quality of life. Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42023307516.Results: Nine RCTs involving 1758 patients were analyzed. The antidepressants examined included duloxetine, escitalopram, bupropion, amitriptyline, imipramine and desipramine. Duloxetine 60 mg significantly reduced pain (MD = -0.57; 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.36) and improved quality of life compared with placebo, with side effects that were generally tolerable. Notably, higher doses of duloxetine (120 mg) were associated with an increase in adverse events. However, other antidepressants like amitriptyline and escitalopram demonstrated only modest or inconsistent effects.Conclusion: Duloxetine at 60 mg provides consistent pain relief and improves the quality of life in NCLBP, but higher doses increase adverse events. Escitalopram might offer modest benefits but should be considered a third-line treatment. Other antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, bupropion, imipramine and desipramine, have limited evidence supporting their efficacy and are associated with adverse effects.

Introduction: Experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of reciprocal influence between neural systems involved in cognition and central pain processing circuits. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated bidirectional communication between central pain processing areas and the immune system, leading to changes in behaviour, sensory perception, mood, and cognition. However, the academic community has not yet reached a consensus on whether effective analgesic interventions can mitigate or reverse cognitive deterioration. Methods: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of various therapeutic interventions in improving cognitive functions (primary outcome) and altering the profile of immunological markers (secondary outcome) in chronic pain patients. The review was limited to randomised controlled trials addressing chronic pain of any aetiology, with searches conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Results: The qualitative synthesis of twelve studies conducted between 2003 and 2021, involving 1432 participants in experimental ( n = 950) and control ( n = 482) groups, revealed some interesting patterns. Only half of the studies (6/12) reported cognitive improvement, with attention being the most analysed cognitive domain, followed by memory and executive function. Fibromyalgia was the most studied aetiology of chronic pain. The strategies of intervention/treatment and durations varied widely; however, milnacipran versus placebo emerged as the most frequently employed intervention. Only one study reported immunological markers, limiting the evaluation of this outcome. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, it is not possible to affirm that interventions targeting chronic pain improve cognition. This review suggests new research directions and calls for more robust methodological approaches.