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.

A Randomized Exploratory Study to Evaluate Two Acupuncture Methods for the Treatment of Headaches Associated with Traumatic Brain Injury.

Background: Headaches are prevalent among Service members with traumatic brain injury (TBI); 80% report chronic or recurrent headache. Evidence for nonpharmacologic treatments, such as acupuncture, are needed. Objective: The aim of this research was to determine if two types of acupuncture (auricular acupuncture [AA] and traditional Chinese acupuncture [TCA]) were feasible and more effective than usual care (UC) alone for TBI-related headache. Materials and Methods:Design: This was a three-armed, parallel, randomized exploratory study. Setting: The research took place at three military treatment facilities in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Patients: The subjects were previously deployed Service members (18-69 years old) with mild-to-moderate TBI and headaches. Intervention: The interventions explored were UC alone or with the addition of AA or TCA. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Secondary outcomes were the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist, Symptom Checklist-90-R, Medical Outcome Study Quality of Life (QoL), Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, and expectancy of outcome and acupuncture efficacy. Results: Mean HIT scores decreased in the AA and TCA groups but increased slightly in the UC-only group from baseline to week 6 [AA, -10.2% (-6.4 points); TCA, -4.6% (-2.9 points); UC, +0.8% (+0.6 points)]. Both acupuncture groups had sizable decreases in NRS (Pain Best), compared to UC (TCA versus UC: P = 0.0008, d = 1.70; AA versus UC: P = 0.0127, d = 1.6). No statistically significant results were found for any other secondary outcome measures. Conclusions: Both AA and TCA improved headache-related QoL more than UC did in Service members with TBI.

The Impact of Massage Therapy on Function in Pain Populations-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Part II, Cancer Pain Populations.

PURPOSE: Pain is multi-dimensional and may be better addressed through a holistic, biopsychosocial approach. Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking pain management; however, its efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to rigorously assess the quality of massage therapy research and evidence for its efficacy in treating pain, function-related and health-related quality of life in cancer populations. METHODS: Key databases were searched from inception through February 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality using the SIGN 50 Checklist. Meta-analysis was applied at the outcome level. A diverse steering committee interpreted the results to develop recommendations. RESULTS: Twelve high quality and four low quality studies were subsequently included in the review. Results demonstrate massage therapy is effective for treating pain compared to no treatment [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -.20] and active (SMD = -0.55) comparators. Compared to active comparators, massage therapy was also found to be beneficial for treating fatigue (SMD = -1.06) and anxiety (SMD = -1.24). CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence, weak recommendations are suggested for massage therapy, compared to an active comparator, for the treatment of pain, fatigue, and anxiety. No recommendations were suggested for massage therapy compared to no treatment or sham control based on the available literature to date. This review addresses massage therapy safety, research challenges, how to address identified research gaps, and necessary next steps for implementing massage therapy as a viable pain management option for cancer pain populations.

The Impact of Massage Therapy on Function in Pain Populations-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Part III, Surgical Pain Populations.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is multi-dimensional and may be better addressed through a holistic, biopsychosocial approach. Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking pain management; however, its efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to rigorously assess the quality of the evidence for massage therapy's efficacy in treating pain, function-related, and health-related quality of life outcomes in surgical pain populations. METHODS: Key databases were searched from inception through February 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality using SIGN 50 Checklist. Meta-analysis was applied at the outcome level. A professionally diverse steering committee interpreted the results to develop recommendations. RESULTS: Twelve high quality and four low quality studies were included in the review. Results indicate massage therapy is effective for treating pain [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.79] and anxiety (SMD = -0.57) compared to active comparators. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, weak recommendations are suggested for massage therapy, compared to active comparators for reducing pain intensity/severity and anxiety in patients undergoing surgical procedures. This review also discusses massage therapy safety, challenges within this research field, how to address identified research gaps, and next steps for future research.

The Impact of Massage Therapy on Function in Pain Populations-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Part I, Patients Experiencing Pain in the General Population.

PURPOSE: Pain is multi-dimensional and may be better addressed through a holistic, biopsychosocial approach. Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking pain management; however, its efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to rigorously assess the quality of massage therapy research and evidence for its efficacy in treating pain, function-related and health-related quality of life outcomes across all pain populations. METHODS: Key databases were searched from inception through February 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality using SIGN 50 Checklist. Meta-analysis was applied at the outcome level. A diverse steering committee interpreted the results to develop recommendations. RESULTS: Sixty high quality and seven low quality studies were included in the review. Results demonstrate massage therapy effectively treats pain compared to sham [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -.44], no treatment (SMD = -1.14), and active (SMD = -0.26) comparators. Compared to active comparators, massage therapy was also beneficial for treating anxiety (SMD = -0.57) and health-related quality of life (SMD = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence, massage therapy, compared to no treatment, should be strongly recommended as a pain management option. Massage therapy is weakly recommended for reducing pain, compared to other sham or active comparators, and improving mood and health-related quality of life, compared to other active comparators. Massage therapy safety, research challenges, how to address identified research gaps, and necessary next steps for implementing massage therapy as a viable pain management option are discussed.