Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain. OBJECTIVE: To inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: With few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021230941.

Clinical trials and tribulations: lessons from spinal cord injury studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY DESIGN: Article. OBJECTIVE: ClinicalTrials.gov is an online trial registry that provides public access to information on past, present, and future clinical trials. While increasing transparency in research, the quality of the information provided in trial registrations is highly variable. The objective of this study is to assess key areas of information on ClinicalTrials.gov in interventional trials involving people with spinal cord injuries. SETTING: Interventional trials on ClinicalTrials.gov involving people with spinal cord injuries. METHODS: A subset of data on interventional spinal cord injury trials was downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov. Reviewers extracted information pertaining to study type, injury etiology, spinal cord injury characteristics, timing, study status, and results. RESULTS: Of the interventional trial registrations reviewed, 62.5%, 58.6%, and 24.3% reported injury level, severity, and etiology, respectively. The timing of intervention relative to injury was reported in 72.8% of registrations. Most trials identified a valid study status (89.2%), but only 23.5% of those completed studies had posted results. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides a snapshot of interventional clinical trials conducted in the field of spinal cord injury and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Areas for improvement were identified with regards to reporting injury characteristics, as well as posting results.