60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

      journal-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neuropathic pain in the general population: a systematic review of epidemiological studies.

          Most patients with neuropathic pain symptoms present and are managed in primary care, with only a minority being referred for specialist clinical assessment and diagnoses. Previous reviews have focused mainly on specific neuropathic pain conditions based in specialist settings. This is the first systematic review of epidemiological studies of neuropathic pain in the general population. Electronic databases were searched from January 1966 to December 2012, and studies were included where the main focus was on neuropathic pain prevalence and/or incidence, either as part of a specific neuropathic pain-related condition or as a global entity in the general population. We excluded studies in which data were extracted from pain or other specialist clinics or focusing on specific population subgroups. Twenty-one articles were identified and underwent quality assessment and data extraction. Included studies differed in 3 main ways: method of data retrieval, case ascertainment tool used, and presentation of prevalence/incidence rates. This heterogeneity precluded any meta-analysis. We categorised comparable incidence and prevalence rates into 2 main subgroups: (1) chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics (range 3-17%), and (2) neuropathic pain associated with a specific condition, including postherpetic neuralgia (3.9-42.0/100,000 person-years [PY]), trigeminal neuralgia (12.6-28.9/100,000 PY), painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (15.3-72.3/100,000 PY), glossopharyngeal neuralgia (0.2-0.4/100,000 PY). These differences highlight the importance of a standardised approach for identifying neuropathic pain in future epidemiological studies. A best estimate of population prevalence of pain with neuropathic characteristics is likely to lie between 6.9% and 10%. Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

            Background Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results. Methods and Findings For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease. Conclusions When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical research.

              Meta-analysis is the process of combining study results that can be used to draw conclusions about therapeutic effectiveness or to plan new studies. We review important design and statistical issues of this process. The design issues include protocol development, objectives, literature search, publication bias, measures of study outcomes, and quality of the data. The statistical issues include consistency (homogeneity) of study outcomes, and techniques for pooling results from several studies. Guidelines are provided to assess the quality of meta-analyses based on our discussion of the design and statistical issues. Limitations and areas for further development of this approach are discussed; researchers should come to a general agreement on how to conduct meta-analysis. As an explicit strategy for summarizing results, meta-analysis may help clinicians and researchers better understand the findings of clinical studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Wiley
                2018
                07 March 2018
                12 October 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University Hospital of Bonn; Department of Palliative Medicine; Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25 Bonn Germany 53127
                [2 ] University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Churchill Hospital Oxford UK OX3 7LJ
                [3 ] Universitätsmedizin Göttingen; Pain Clinic; Göttingen Germany
                [4 ] Technische Universität München; Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy; Langerstr. 3 München Germany D-81675
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD012182.PUB2
                6494210
                29513392
                d6eb65db-7298-4a3f-936f-b0d2f5409041
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article