NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review
Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 247
Investigators: Roger Chou, M.D., Rongwei Fu, Ph.D., Tracy Dana, M.L.S., Miranda Pappas, M.A., Erica Hart, M.S.T., and Kimberly M. Mauer, M.D.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
To evaluate the benefits and harms of selected interventional procedures for acute and chronic pain that are not currently covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) but are relevant for and have potential utility for use in the Medicare population, or that are covered by CMS but for which there is important uncertainty or controversy regarding use.
Data sources:
Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to April 12, 2021, reference lists, and submissions in response to a Federal Register notice.
Review methods:
Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for 10 interventional procedures and conditions that evaluated pain, function, health status, quality of life, medication use, and harms. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for vertebral compression fracture; otherwise, outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. Effects were classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria.
Results:
Thirty-seven randomized trials (in 48 publications) were included. Vertebroplasty (13 trials) is probably more effective at reducing pain and improving function in older (>65 years of age) patients, but benefits are small (less than 1 point on a 10-point pain scale). Benefits appear smaller (but still present) in sham-controlled (5 trials) compared with usual care controlled trials (8 trials) and larger in trials of patients with more acute symptoms; however, testing for subgroup effects was limited by imprecision. Vertebroplasty is probably not associated with increased risk of incident vertebral fracture (10 trials). Kyphoplasty (2 trials) is probably more effective than usual care for pain and function in older patients with vertebral compression fracture at up to 1 month (moderate to large benefits) and may be more effective at >1 month to ≥1 year (small to moderate benefits) but has not been compared against sham therapy. Evidence on kyphoplasty and risk of incident fracture was conflicting. In younger (below age for Medicare eligibility) populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac pain (2 trials) is probably more effective for pain and function versus sham at 1 and 3 months (moderate to large benefits). Cooled radiofrequency for presumed facet joint pain may be similarly effective versus conventional radiofrequency, and piriformis injection with corticosteroid for piriformis syndrome may be more effective than sham injection for pain. For the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed, evidence was too limited to determine benefits and harms.
Conclusions:
Vertebroplasty is probably effective at reducing pain and improving function in older patients with vertebral compression fractures; benefits are small but similar to other therapies recommended for pain. Evidence was too limited to separate effects of control type and symptom acuity on effectiveness of vertebroplasty. Kyphoplasty has not been compared against sham but is probably more effective than usual care for vertebral compression fractures in older patients. In younger populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation is probably more effective than sham for sacroiliac pain. Research is needed to determine the benefits and harms of the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed in this review.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Evidence Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Appendixes
- Appendix A. Search Strategies
- Appendix B. List of Excluded Studies
- Appendix C. Quality Rating Criteria
- Appendix D. Detailed Statistical Methods
- Appendix E. Grading the Strength of Evidence
- Appendix F. List of Included Studies
- Appendix G. Data Abstraction Tables
- Appendix H. Quality Table
- Appendix I. Meta-Analysis Results
- Appendix J. Strength of Evidence
Suggested citation:
Chou R, Fu R, Dana T, Pappas M, Hart E, Mauer KM. Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 247. (Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 75Q80120D00006.) AHRQ Publication No. 21-EHC030. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER247. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page.
This report is based on research conducted by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 75Q80120D00006). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders.
AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.
AHRQ appreciates appropriate acknowledgment and citation of its work. Suggested language for acknowledgment: This work was based on an evidence report, Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review, by the Evidence-based Practice Center Program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic ReviewInterventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review
- Antidepressant Medicines - Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for C...Antidepressant Medicines - Comparative Effectiveness Review Summary Guides for Consumers
- clec-161 C-type lectin domain-containing protein 161 [Caenorhabditis elegans]clec-161 C-type lectin domain-containing protein 161 [Caenorhabditis elegans]Gene ID:176357Gene
- F40E3.6 SPK domain-containing protein [Caenorhabditis elegans]F40E3.6 SPK domain-containing protein [Caenorhabditis elegans]Gene ID:353381Gene
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...