Descriptive method guidelines. To help reviewers design, conduct, and report reviews of trials in the field of back and neck pain. In 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group published method guidelines for systematic reviews. Since its publication, new methodologic evidence emerged and more experience was acquired in conducting reviews. All reviews and protocols of the Back Review Group were assessed for compliance with the 1997 method guidelines. Also, the most recent version of the Cochrane Handbook (4.1) was checked for new recommendations. In addition, some important topics that were not addressed in the 1997 method guidelines were included (e.g., methods for qualitative analysis, reporting of conclusions, and discussion of clinical relevance of the results). In May 2002, preliminary results were presented and discussed in a workshop. In two rounds, a list of all possible recommendations and the final draft were circulated for comments among the editors of the Back Review Group. The recommendations are divided in five categories: literature search, inclusion criteria, methodologic quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis. Each recommendation is classified in minimum criteria and further guidance. Additional recommendations are included regarding assessment of clinical relevance, and reporting of results and conclusions. Systematic reviews need to be conducted as carefully as the trials they report and, to achieve full impact, systematic reviews need to meet high methodologic standards.

Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders.

Background: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a major health problem, for which opioids provide one treatment option. However, evidence is needed about side effects, efficacy, and risk of misuse or addiction. Methods: This meta-analysis was carried out with these objectives: to compare the efficacy of opioids for CNCP with other drugs and placebo; to identify types of CNCP that respond better to opioids; and to determine the most common side effects of opioids. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (up to May 2005) and reference lists for randomized controlled trials of any opioid administered by oral or transdermal routes or rectal suppositories for CNCP (defined as pain for longer than 6 mo). Extracted outcomes included pain, function or side effects. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad instrument; analyses were conducted with Revman 4.2.7. Results: Included were 41 randomized trials involving 6019 patients: 80% of the patients had nociceptive pain (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or back pain); 12%, neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy or phantom limb pain); 7%, fibromyalgia; and 1%, mixed pain. The methodological quality of 87% of the studies was high. The opioids studied were classified as weak (tramadol, propoxyphene, codeine) or strong (morphine, oxycodone). Average duration of treatment was 5 (range 1–16) weeks. Dropout rates averaged 33% in the opioid groups and 38% in the placebo groups. Opioids were more effective than placebo for both pain and functional outcomes in patients with nociceptive or neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Strong, but not weak, opioids were significantly superior to naproxen and nortriptyline, and only for pain relief. Among the side effects of opioids, only constipation and nausea were clinically and statistically significant. Interpretation: Weak and strong opioids outperformed placebo for pain and function in all types of CNCP. Other drugs produced better functional outcomes than opioids, whereas for pain relief they were outperformed only by strong opioids. Despite the relative shortness of the trials, more than one-third of the participants abandoned treatment.

Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders. N/A.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain (NeP), redefined as pain caused by a lesion or a disease of the somatosensory system, is a disabling condition that affects approximately two million Canadians.OBJECTIVE: To review the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews related to the pharmacological management of NeP to develop a revised evidence‐based consensus statement on its management.METHODS: RCTs, systematic reviews and existing guidelines on the pharmacological management of NeP were evaluated at a consensus meeting in May 2012 and updated until September 2013. Medications were recommended in the consensus statement if their analgesic efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically sound RCT (class I or class II) showing significant benefit relative to placebo or another relevant control group. Recommendations for treatment were based on the degree of evidence of analgesic efficacy, safety and ease of use.RESULTS: Analgesic agents recommended for first‐line treatments are gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Tramadol and controlled‐release opioid analgesics are recommended as second‐line treatments for moderate to severe pain. Cannabinoids are now recommended as third‐line treatments. Recommended fourth‐line treatments include methadone, anticonvulsants with lesser evidence of efficacy (eg, lamotrigine, lacos‐amide), tapentadol and botulinum toxin. There is support for some analgesic combinations in selected NeP conditions.CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines provide an updated, stepwise approach to the pharmacological management of NeP. Treatment should be individualized for each patient based on efficacy, side‐effect profile and drug accessibility, including cost. Additional studies are required to examine head‐to‐head comparisons among analgesics, combinations of analgesics, long‐term outcomes and treatment of pediatric, geriatric and central NeP.

Some authors argue that systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention studies should include only randomized controlled trials because the randomized controlled trial is a more valid study design for causal inference compared with the observational study design. However, a review of the principal elements underlying this claim (randomization removes the chance of confounding, and the double-blind process minimizes biases caused by the placebo effect) suggests that both classes of study designs have strengths and weaknesses, and including information from observational studies may improve the inference based on only randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, a review of empirical studies suggests that meta-analyses based on observational studies generally produce estimates of effect similar to those from meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials. The authors found that the advantages of including both observational studies and randomized studies in a meta-analysis could outweigh the disadvantages in many situations and that observational studies should not be excluded a priori.