Label Accuracy of Weight Loss Dietary Supplements Marketed Online With Military Discounts.

Importance: Dietary supplements for weight loss, among the most popular supplement products on the market, are promoted not only for losing weight and shedding fat, but also for added benefits of energy and performance, all packed into 1 capsule with multiple combinations of ingredients. Fraudulent marketing of weight loss supplements, some with exaggerated claims, some that are potentially dangerous, and some that contain illegal ingredients, is ever present, especially through online sources, where multiple manufacturers target service members by offering military discounts. Objectives: To examine whether select dietary supplements marketed online for weight loss from companies advertising military discounts are accurately labeled according to the Supplement Facts listed ingredients, whether they contain any ingredients prohibited for use in the military, and to qualitatively describe the products' label claims. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series, 30 dietary supplement products marketed for weight loss were selected and purchased in June 2023 from 12 online companies advertising military discounts. Data were analyzed from July to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to verify whether products were accurately labeled according to the Supplement Facts listed ingredients and whether they contained any substances on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients List. A separate analysis was conducted to describe product label claims by using the Operation Supplement Safety (OPSS) Risk Assessment Scorecard. Results: Of the 30 products tested, analysis showed that 25 had inaccurate labels. Of these, 24 had ingredients listed on the label that were not detected (misbranded); 7 had hidden components not present on the label, some of which would be considered adulterated; and 10 had substances on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients List either on or hidden from the label. All products were rated as risky when applying the OPSS Scorecard. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series study, the majority of products had inaccurate labels. Some were misbranded, others would be considered adulterated with ingredients not allowed in dietary supplements, and some contained ingredients prohibited for use in the military.

Association between spinal and non-spinal health conditions reported in epidemiological studies: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences. REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://osf.io/w49u3.

Select Dietary Supplement Ingredients for Preserving and Protecting the Immune System in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review.

Immune health products represent approximately 10% of all US dietary supplement sales. Claims made on products to support or boost the immune system are attractive to the otherwise healthy consumer who may or may not be experiencing certain life stressors. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate the purported benefits and/or potential harms of select dietary supplement ingredients frequently listed on the labels of products having immune health or related market claims. With a focus on resilience, research questions were related to whether dietary supplement ingredients are efficacious in preserving and protecting immune health in healthy individuals; and when faced with a stressor, whether taking a supplement prophylactically can assist in maintaining health and resisting or bouncing back more quickly. Thirty-nine randomized controlled studies involving populations including children, adults and seniors exposed to stressors, such as air travel, intense exercise, academic stress, and/or exposure to winter weather, met eligibility criteria. The studies included eight of the 27 supplement ingredients identified through a market-driven scoping review. Those ingredients used in single ingredient products were echinacea, elderberry, garlic, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and zinc. Whereas some studies may point to evidence for benefit, specific gaps preclude the authors from making firm statements with regard to the overall evidence-base for these products and ingredients and in answering the research questions. As we move toward a vision of health promotion and resilience rather than a sole focus on disease prevention and treatment, further work in this area of dietary supplements is of utmost importance.

Analysis of Select Dietary Supplement Products Marketed to Support or Boost the Immune System.

Importance: Cold, flu, and immunity dietary supplement product sales have skyrocketed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting or boosting the immune system has become an important reason for using dietary supplements, and many consumers are purchasing products through online platforms. Objectives: To examine whether select dietary supplement products advertised as supporting or boosting the immune system are accurately labeled according to the Supplement Facts label of listed ingredients and to qualitatively describe the product labels' characteristics in terms of claims made. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series, 30 featured immune health dietary supplements were selected and purchased from Amazon.com in May 2021. Product analysis was performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The list of ingredients detected through analysis for each product was compared with the ingredients on the product's Supplement Facts label to determine whether the product's label was accurate. Claims made on product labels were also evaluated by using the Operation Supplement Safety Scorecard's set of questions to describe the labels' characteristics. Results: A total of 30 select dietary supplement products were evaluated. Thirteen of the 30 products had accurate labels based on the product analysis. Of the 17 products with inaccurate labels, 13 had ingredients listed on the labels that were not detected through analysis, such that their labels were misbranded. Nine products had substances detected that were not claimed on the product labels, some of which may be considered adulterated. Five were misbranded and contained additional components not claimed on the label. No product had third-party certification seals present on the packaging. Ten of the 13 products with accurate labels received a score of 4 or more when applying the Operation Supplement Safety Scorecard, meaning the product was "likely okay/less risky." Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series study, most of the products tested had inaccurate labels and claims that were inconsistent with requirements the US Food and Drug Administration has put forward for dietary supplements. Quality control measures seem to be insufficient for most of these select products, and claims made on labels may be misleading consumers who purchase products.

Relative safety and quality of various dietary supplement products U.S. Service Members ask about.

CONTEXT: The purpose of this project was to determine types of dietary supplement products U.S. Service Members frequently ask about and identify risks associated with select products that consumers should be aware of when considering their use. METHODS: Forty-one dietary supplement products frequently asked about through the Operation Supplement Safety's (OPSS.org) Ask-the-Expert portal were selected. Product analysis was performed to verify whether select products were accurately labeled and to identify any risky ingredients contained in these products. Operation Supplement Safety Risk Assessment Scorecard criteria were additionally used as a screening tool to assess a product's relative safety potential. RESULTS: Among the select dietary supplements, 12 (29.3%) were marketed as pre-workout products; 14 (34.1%) for weight loss; four (9.8%) for male enhancement/testosterone boosters; and 11 (26.8%) as body building supplements. Eleven (26.8%) products had accurate labels; only eight of these had accurate labels plus no risky ingredients listed on the labels. Twenty-six (63.4%) products were misbranded; 10 (24.4%) were adulterated, and six (14.6%) were both misbranded and adulterated. Risky ingredients appeared on 23 (56%) of all product labels. Eight of these 23 products also had additional risky ingredients not listed on the labels but detected through analysis. According to the Scorecard based on label claims, 35 (85.4%) received a rating of "no-go/risky". CONCLUSIONS: U.S. Service Members and the public at large should be aware that dietary supplements may contain risky ingredients and know how to identify ingredients on the label to evaluate potential risk.

Prioritized research recommendations and potential solutions: addressing gaps surrounding dietary supplement ingredients for boosting brain health and optimizing cognitive performance.

In the market of dietary supplements, a low level of certainty exists in the state of the science, coupled with not always knowing what is in the product. Together these issues make weighing benefits/risks difficult and hinder the ability to guide evidence-based practice decisions. The authors sought to identify priorities and develop potential solutions to address research gaps so that information disseminated, can ultimately, be relied upon, when trying to make appropriate and safe decisions. Using a modified-Delphi process, 8 panelists reviewed evidence, provided from systematic review, on dietary supplement ingredients for brain health, and prioritized gaps identified and offered potential solutions. Research gaps specific to dietary supplements research included the need for quality testing of products, the question of bioavailability and absorption of ingredients, and optimal composition and standardization of supplements under investigation. Other gaps related to populations studied; a general sense of bias towards focusing research on diseased rather than maintaining or optimizing performance in healthy populations. Additionally, the lack of uniform cognitive performance measures and metrics used across research is a gap, as well as whether the metrics are accurate representations of or even generalizable to "real-life" participants wishing to optimize their performance. Methodological quality and ethical concerns in the conduct and reporting of science encompass all issues. If resources map to potential solutions outlined in this paper, then these proposed next steps offered will help facilitate meaningful research, move evidence into practice recommendations, and ultimately develop better decision-making tools for consumers to trust and rely upon for making safe supplement decisions.

Dietary Supplement Ingredients for Optimizing Cognitive Performance Among Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review.

Background: Dietary supplements promoted for brain health and enhanced cognitive performance are widely available. Claims made for these products are directed not only to the elderly wishing to prevent or mitigate cognitive decline, but also young healthy populations looking to boost their cognitive performance. It is unclear whether these claims made on product bottles and through advertising match the science. Objectives: To explore the evidence on the efficacy and safety of single dietary supplement ingredients frequently marketed with claims of enhanced cognitive performance among healthy adults. Design: A systematic review. Results: Nine of 54 dietary supplement ingredients identified through a scoping review met the eligibility criteria with at least 3 published studies identified per ingredient, yielding 69 unique publications. Ingredients evaluated included Bacopa monnieri, choline, creatine, omega-3 fatty acids, Ginkgo biloba, ginseng, Rhodiola rosea, tyrosine, and valerian root, all in supplement form and compared with a placebo, at various serving sizes and durations of use. Conclusions: The low level of certainty in the state of the science, coupled with not always knowing what is in a dietary supplement product, make weighing risks and benefits difficult; these data hinder the ability to develop recommendations about using such ingredients for consumers interested in boosting their cognitive performance. Whereas certain trends regarding promising serving sizes or duration for use, are pointed to in this synthesis, when combined, studies are inconsistent and imprecise, and many are methodologically flawed. Potential solutions to address research gaps are offered, for future research next steps, which is needed to strengthen the evidence and inform decisions.

Analytical Challenges and Metrological Approaches to Ensuring Dietary Supplement Quality: International Perspectives.

The increased utilization of metrology resources and expanded application of its' approaches in the development of internationally agreed upon measurements can lay the basis for regulatory harmonization, support reproducible research, and advance scientific understanding, especially of dietary supplements and herbal medicines. Yet, metrology is often underappreciated and underutilized in dealing with the many challenges presented by these chemically complex preparations. This article discusses the utility of applying rigorous analytical techniques and adopting metrological principles more widely in studying dietary supplement products and ingredients, particularly medicinal plants and other botanicals. An assessment of current and emerging dietary supplement characterization methods is provided, including targeted and non-targeted techniques, as well as data analysis and evaluation approaches, with a focus on chemometrics, toxicity, dosage form performance, and data management. Quality assessment, statistical methods, and optimized methods for data management are also discussed. Case studies provide examples of applying metrological principles in thorough analytical characterization of supplement composition to clarify their health effects. A new frontier for metrology in dietary supplement science is described, including opportunities to improve methods for analysis and data management, development of relevant standards and good practices, and communication of these developments to researchers and analysts, as well as to regulatory and policy decision makers in the public and private sectors. The promotion of closer interactions between analytical, clinical, and pharmaceutical scientists who are involved in research and product development with metrologists who develop standards and methodological guidelines is critical to advance research on dietary supplement characterization and health effects.

Be in the Know: Dietary Supplements for Cognitive Performance.

Dietary supplements promoted for brain health and enhanced cognitive performance are becoming increasingly popular. Special Operations Forces (SOF) is likely a prime target for this market as they strive to continually optimize and then sustain their high level of performance at all times. When a dietary supplement hits the market, it is considered safe until it is proven otherwise; yet the majority have not been analyzed for quality or tested for safety. The authors describe issues related to products marketed for brain health and cognitive enhancement and focus on products brought to our attention by the operational communities. The overwhelming majority of product labels were found to be misbranded and some were found to contain prohibited ingredients and drugs. The problematic ingredients in these products are introduced. The Operation Supplement Safety scorecard algorithm is demonstrated as a tool to quickly screen a product for potential safety; it can be used in real-time when considering the use of any dietary supplement product. These resources are available to help SOF medical assets evaluate whether a product's claims may be deceiving and potentially harmful to the health or career of Operators.

A Public Health Issue: Dietary Supplements Promoted for Brain Health and Cognitive Performance.

Background: Dietary supplements targeting brain health have quickly emerged in the marketplace as cognitive performance becomes an important public health issue. While manufacturers are required to report the exact ingredients and formulations listed on the Supplement Facts labels of products, many reports have indicated such labels are not always truthful, and the content of some products is inconsistent with the ingredients listed on the Supplement Facts label. Objectives: To identify dietary supplement products and ingredients marketed for brain health and cognitive performance and perform analyses of select products to verify whether purported claims are truthful and product labels accurate. Design: A scoping review was performed to identify products and ingredients. Products were selected for content analysis, investigated for scientific-sounding claims made, and assessed using an educational tool for potential red flags when reading Supplement Facts labels. Results: Twelve products were selected from the 650 products being marketed for brain health and queried about by Service Members. Eight (67%) had at least one ingredient listed on the Supplement Facts label not detected through analysis. Compounds not reported on the label were detected in 10 (83%) products. Scientific-sounding claims made are not supported by science and red flags are presented. Conclusions: There are dietary supplements targeting brain health being marketed to consumers that should be considered adulterated and misbranded. Advertisements and product labels may be deceiving and could put the public at risk. Education is required so that the public can recognize red flags while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration works to "modernize" the current regulations for dietary supplements.

The scoop on brain health dietary supplement products containing huperzine A.

Context: Public health concerns are emerging surrounding huperzine A commonly found in dietary supplements. We sought to determine the actual content of products claiming to contain huperzine A and whether the ingredients on the supplement facts labels matched the analyses.Methods: We identified and analyzed 22 dietary supplement products listing huperzine A on product labels. We found these products were listed in Natural Medicines and Dietary Supplement Databases and being queried by Military Service Members for enhanced mental focus, alertness and energy. Analyses were conducted by using Liquid Chromatography-Quadrupole Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry.Results: Sixteen (73%) products had at least one ingredient claimed on the supplement facts label not detected through analysis. Compounds not reported on the label were detected in 16 (73%) products analyzed. Nine products (41%) listed ingredients not meeting the regulations for being a dietary supplement ingredient according to the FDA. Ingredients of most concern detected include stimulants: demelverine, 1,5-dimethylhexylamine, 1,3-dimethylhexylamine, N-phenethyl dimethylamine, halostachine, higenamine, noopept, ß-PEA, vinpocetine, sulbutiamine; and hordenine, currently on the FDA advisory list. Quantitative analysis showed the presence of huperzine A in the range from detected under the limits of quantification (DUL) to 267.1 µg/serving. Only two supplements showed huperzine A content within 10% of the declared amount.Conclusions: In a study of dietary supplements claiming to contain huperzine A, we found products that had at least one ingredient claimed on the supplement facts label not detected through analysis. Moreover, some ingredients not on the label could be dangerous and likely do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement ingredient according to the FDA. Quantitative analysis of huperzine A showed the amount detected was not in line with what appeared on the product label. Consumers should be aware of deceptive label claims and warned not to purchase products containing potentially dangerous ingredients.

Conditional Recommendations for Specific Dietary Ingredients as an Approach to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Health Care Providers, Participants, and Policy Makers.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 55-76% of Service members use dietary supplements for various reasons; although such use has become popular for a wide range of pain conditions, decisions to use supplements are often driven by information that is not evidence-based. This work evaluates whether the current research on dietary ingredients for chronic musculoskeletal pain provides sufficient evidence to inform decisions for practice and self-care, specifically for Special Operations Forces personnel. METHODS: A steering committee convened to develop research questions and factors required for decision-making. Key databases were searched through August 2016. Eligible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was applied where feasible. GRADE was used to determine confidence in the effect estimates. A decision table was constructed to make evidence-informed judgments across factors required for decision-making, and recommendations were made for practice and self-care use. RESULTS: Nineteen dietary ingredients were included. Conditional evidence-based recommendations were made for the use of avocado soybean unsaponifiables, capsaicin, curcuma, ginger, glucosamine, melatonin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamin D. In these cases, desirable effects outweighed undesirable effects, but there was uncertainty about the trade-offs, either because the evidence was low quality or because benefits and downsides were closely balanced. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence showed that certain dietary ingredients, when taken as part of a balanced diet and/or as a supplement (e.g., pill, tablet, capsule, cream), may alleviate musculoskeletal pain with no to minimal risk of harm. This finding emphasizes and reinforces the critical importance of shared decision-making between Operators and their health care providers.

Dietary Ingredients as an Alternative Approach for Mitigating Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Practice and Research in the Military.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 55-76% of Service members use dietary supplements for various reasons, including pain and related outcomes. This work evaluates current research on dietary ingredients for chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform decisions for practice and self-care, specifically for Special Operations Forces personnel. METHODS: A steering committee convened to develop research questions and factors required for decision-making. Key databases were searched through August 2016. Eligible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was applied where feasible. GRADE was used to determine confidence in the effect estimates. The committee made evidence-informed judgments and recommendations for practice and self-care use. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible dietary ingredients were assessed for quality, efficacy, and safety. Avocado soybean unsaponifiables, capsaicin, curcuma, ginger (as a food source), glucosamine, melatonin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamin D were conditionally recommended as their benefits outweighed risks, but there was still some uncertainty about the trade-offs. No recommendations were made for boswellia, ginger (as a dietary supplement), rose hip, or s-adenosyl-L-methionine. Recommendations were made against the use of collagen, creatine, devil's claw, l-carnitine, methylsulfonylmethane, pycnogenol, willow bark extract, and vitamin E. Research priorities were developed to address gaps precluding stronger recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Currently the scientific evidence is insufficiently robust to establish definitive clinical practice guidelines, but processes could be established to track the impact of these ingredients. Until then, providers have the evidence needed to make informed decisions about the safe use of these dietary ingredients, and future research can address existing gaps.

Dietary Ingredients Requiring Further Research Before Evidence-Based Recommendations Can Be Made for Their Use as an Approach to Mitigating Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 55-76% of Service members use dietary supplements for various reasons; although such use has become popular, decisions are often driven by information that is not evidence-based. This work evaluates whether current research on dietary ingredients for chronic musculoskeletal pain provides sufficient evidence to inform decisions for practice and self-care, specifically for Special Operations Forces personnel. METHODS: A steering committee convened to develop research questions and factors required for decision-making. Key databases were searched through August 2016. Eligible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was applied where feasible. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to determine confidence in the effect estimates. The committee used a decision table to make evidence-informed judgments across decision-making factors and recommendations for practice and self-care use. RESULTS: Nineteen dietary ingredients were assessed. No recommendations were given for boswellia, ginger, rose hip, or s-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe); specifically, although ginger can be obtained via food, no recommendation is provided for use as a supplement due to unclear research. Further, there were insufficient strong research on boswellia and SAMe and possible compliance issues (i.e., high number of capsules required daily) associated with rose hip. CONCLUSIONS: No recommendations were made when the evidence was low quality or trade-offs were so closely balanced that any recommendation would be too speculative. Research recommendations are provided to enhance the quality and body of evidence for the most promising ingredients. Clinicians and those with chronic pain can rely on evidence-based recommendations to inform their decisions.

Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel.

BACKGROUND: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. OBJECTIVES: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. RESULTS: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. LIMITATIONS: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. KEY WORDS: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared with sham (placebo) procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. Randomized controlled trials comparing invasive procedures with identical but otherwise sham procedures for chronic pain conditions were selected. Three authors independently extracted and described study characteristics and assessed Cochrane risk of bias. Two subsets of data on back and knee pain, respectively, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall quality of the literature was assessed through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (2,000 participants) were included in the review assessing the effect of invasive procedures over sham. Conditions included low back (N = 7 trials), arthritis (4), angina (4), abdominal pain (3), endometriosis (3), biliary colic (2), and migraine (2). Thirteen trials (52%) reported an adequate concealment of allocation. Fourteen studies (56%) reported on adverse events. Of these, the risk of any adverse event was significantly higher for invasive procedures (12%) than sham procedures (4%; risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.09, P = 0.01, I2 = 65%). In the two meta-analysis subsets, the standardized mean difference for reduction of low back pain in seven studies (N = 445) was 0.18 (95% CI = -0.14 to 0.51, P = 0.26, I2 = 62%), and for knee pain in three studies (N = 496) it was 0.04 (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.19, P = 0.63, I2 = 36%). The relative contribution of within-group improvement in sham treatments accounted for 87% of the effect compared with active treatment across all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence for the specific efficacy beyond sham for invasive procedures in chronic pain. A moderate amount of evidence does not support the use of invasive procedures as compared with sham procedures for patients with chronic back or knee pain. Given their high cost and safety concerns, more rigorous studies are required before invasive procedures are routinely used for patients with chronic pain.