Prevalence of smoking in adults with spinal cord stimulators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking adversely impacts pain-related outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). However, the proportion of SCS patients at risk of worse outcomes is limited by an incomplete knowledge of smoking prevalence in this population. Thus, the primary aim of this systematic review is to determine the prevalence of smoking in adults with chronic pain treated with SCS. METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases from 1 January 1980 to 3 January 2019 was conducted. Eligible study designs included (1) randomized trials; (2) prospective and retrospective cohort studies; and (3) cross-sectional studies. The risk of bias was assessed using a tool specifically developed for prevalence studies. A total of 1619 records were screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, and the total number of participants was 10 838. RESULTS: Thirteen studies had low or moderate risk of bias, and six had a high risk of bias. All 19 studies reported smoking status and the pooled prevalence was 38% (95% CI 30% to 47%). The pooled prevalence in 6 studies of peripheral vascular diseases was 56% (95% CI 42% to 69%), the pooled prevalence of smoking in 11 studies of lumbar spine diagnoses was 28% (95% CI 20% to 36%) and the pooled prevalence in 2 studies of refractory angina was 44% (95% CI 31% to 58%). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated prevalence of smoking in SCS patients is 2.5 times greater than the general population. Future research should focus on development, testing and deployment of tailored smoking cessation treatments for SCS patients.

Characteristics of physicians who prescribe opioids for chronic pain: a meta-narrative systematic review.

Background: The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify the characteristics of physicians who prescribe opioids to adults with chronic pain. This review was limited to studies examining fully-trained physicians, as relevant characteristics of resident physicians and non-physician clinicians may differ. Methods: A comprehensive search of databases from January 1, 1980 to December 5, 2017 was conducted. Eligible study designs included (1) randomized trials; (2) nonrandomized prospective and retrospective studies; and (3) cross-sectional observational studies. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies. A total of 2508 records were screened and 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (n=20) and the total number of participants was 8433. Results: The risk of bias was high overall. The majority of physicians were confident managing and prescribing opioids for chronic pain but had high levels of dissatisfaction. Physicians reported high awareness of the potential for opioid misuse and were concerned about inadequate prior training in pain management. The majority of physicians were less likely to prescribe for patients with a history of substance abuse and reported major concerns about regulatory scrutiny. Conclusion: This systematic review provides the foundation for the development of prospective studies aimed at further elucidating the constellation of mechanisms that influence physicians who manage pain and prescribe opioids.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Unguided Electronic and Mobile Health Technologies for Chronic Pain-Is It Time to Start Prescribing Electronic Health Applications?

OBJECTIVE: Electronic (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) technologies may be a useful adjunct to clinicians treating patients with chronic pain. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of eHealth and mHealth interventions that do not require clinician contact or feedback on pain-related outcomes recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) guidelines in adults with chronic pain. METHODS: We searched four databases and included English language randomized controlled trials of ambulatory adults with chronic pain from January, 1 2000, to January 31, 2018, with interventions that are independent of clinician contact or feedback. In the meta-analysis, outcomes were assessed at short- (three months or less), intermediate- (four to six months), and long-term (seven or more months) follow-up. RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (N = 2,496) were included in the meta-analysis. Both eHealth and mHealth interventions had a significant effect on pain intensity at short- and intermediate-term follow-up. Similarly, a significant but small effect was observed for depression at short- and intermediate-term follow-up and self-efficacy at short-term follow-up. Finally, a significant effect was observed for pain catastrophizing at short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: eHealth and mHealth interventions had significant effects on multiple short- and intermediate-term outcome measures recommended in the IMMPACT guidelines. Given widespread availability and low cost to patients, clinicians treating patients with chronic pain could consider using eHealth and mHealth interventions as part of a multidisciplinary pain treatment strategy.