Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial. RESULTS: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty. CONCLUSION: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

Perioperative Factors Associated With Postoperative Delirium in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. Various predisposing factors are associated with POD, but their magnitude and importance using an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis have not been assessed. Objective: To identify perioperative factors associated with POD and assess their relative prognostic value among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to May 2020. Study Selection: Studies were included that (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, (2) assessed perioperative risk factors for POD, and (3) measured the incidence of delirium (measured using a validated approach). Data were analyzed in 2020. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual patient data were pooled from 21 studies and 1-stage meta-analysis was performed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression after a multivariable imputation via chained equations model to impute missing data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The end point of interest was POD diagnosed up to 10 days after a procedure. A wide range of perioperative risk factors was considered as potentially associated with POD. Results: A total of 192 studies met the eligibility criteria, and IPD were acquired from 21 studies that enrolled 8382 patients. Almost 1 in 5 patients developed POD (18%), and an increased risk of POD was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 4 (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.42-4.14), older age (OR for 65-85 years, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.16-3.29; OR for >85 years, 6.24; 95% CI, 4.65-8.37), low body mass index (OR for body mass index <18.5, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.09), history of delirium (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.69-5.66), preoperative cognitive impairment (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.94-5.43), and preoperative C-reactive protein levels (OR for 5-10 mg/dL, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.59-3.50; OR for >10 mg/dL, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.46-5.17). Completing a college degree or higher was associated with a decreased likelihood of developing POD (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, several important factors associated with POD were found that may help identify patients at high risk and may have utility in clinical practice to inform patients and caregivers about the expected risk of developing delirium after surgery. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce delirium after surgery.

Probiotics, Prebiotics, Lactoferrin, and Combination Products for Prevention of Mortality and Morbidity in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Modulation of intestinal microbiome by administering probiotics, prebiotics, or both may prevent morbidity and mortality in premature infants. Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness of alternative prophylactic strategies through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar from inception until May 10, 2023. Study Selection: Eligible trials tested probiotics, prebiotics, lactoferrin, and combination products for prevention of morbidity or mortality in preterm infants. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A frequentist random-effects model was used for the NMA, and the certainty of evidence and inferences regarding relative effectiveness were assessed using the GRADE approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven sepsis, feeding intolerance, time to reach full enteral feeding, and duration of hospitalization. Results: A total of 106 trials involving 25 840 preterm infants were included. Only multiple-strain probiotics were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; risk difference [RD], -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.4% to -0.8%). Multiple-strain probiotics alone (vs placebo: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50; RD, -3.7%; 95% CI, -4.1% to -2.9%) or in combination with oligosaccharides (vs placebo: RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.37; RD, -5.1%; 95% CI, -5.6% to -3.7%) were among the most effective interventions reducing severe necrotizing enterocolitis. Single-strain probiotics in combination with lactoferrin (vs placebo RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78; RD, -10.7%; 95% CI, -13.7% to -3.5%) were the most effective intervention for reducing sepsis. Multiple-strain probiotics alone (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80; RD, -10.0%; 95% CI, -13.9% to -5.1%) or in combination with oligosaccharides (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67; RD, -14.1%; 95% CI, -18.3% to -8.5%) and single-strain probiotics (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; RD, -10.0%; 95% CI, -12.6% to -7.2%) proved of best effectiveness in reduction of feeding intolerance vs placebo. Single-strain probiotics (MD, -1.94 days; 95% CI, -2.96 to -0.92) and multistrain probiotics (MD, -2.03 days; 95% CI, -3.04 to -1.02) proved the most effective in reducing the time to reach full enteral feeding compared with placebo. Only single-strain and multistrain probiotics were associated with greater effectiveness compared with placebo in reducing duration of hospitalization (MD, -3.31 days; 95% CI, -5.05 to -1.58; and MD, -2.20 days; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.31, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and NMA, moderate- to high-certainty evidence demonstrated an association between multistrain probiotics and reduction in all-cause mortality; these interventions were also associated with the best effectiveness for other key outcomes. Combination products, including single- and multiple-strain probiotics combined with prebiotics or lactoferrin, were associated with the largest reduction in morbidity and mortality.

Amino acids for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To determine the effectiveness and safety of amino acids in preventing the mortality and morbidity among preterm infants. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, and grey literature, from databases inception to January 2021. We included randomized trials that evaluated any amino acids on preterm or low-birth weight infants. We performed frequentist pairwise and network meta-analyses and used the GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence and provide a summary of the results.We included 18 trials (3702 infants). Low certainty evidence showed that there seems to be no benefit for arginine, glutamine, or N-acetylcysteine in reducing all-cause mortality. Oral arginine likely results in reduction of necrotizin enterocolitis (NEC) stage ≥ II (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26-0.90; moderate certainty). Oral glutamine may reduce the likelihood of developing late-onset sepsis (LOS) compared to placebo (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47-0.82; low certainty); and likely reduces time to reach full enteral feeding (MD = - 2.63 days; 95% CI - 4.99 to - 0.27; moderate certainty). Amino acids may have no effect on mortality. Oral arginine may reduce severe NEC, and oral glutamine may reduce LOS and the time to reach full feeding.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD4201603873.

Interventional treatments for chronic, axial or radicular, non-cancer, spinal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170667.