A systematic literature review on patient-reported outcome domains and measures in nonsurgical efficacy trials related to chronic pain associated with endometriosis: an urgent call to action.

ABSTRACT: Endometriosis, a common cause for chronic pelvic pain, significantly affects quality of life, fertility, and overall productivity of those affected. Therapeutic options remain limited, and collating evidence on treatment efficacy is complicated. One reason could be the heterogeneity of assessed outcomes in nonsurgical clinical trials, impeding meaningful result comparisons. This systematic literature review examines outcome domains and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials. Through comprehensive search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up until July 2022, we screened 1286 records, of which 191 were included in our analyses. Methodological quality (GRADE criteria), information about publication, patient population, and intervention were assessed, and domains as well as PROMs were extracted and analyzed. In accordance with IMMPACT domain framework, the domain pain was assessed in almost all studies (98.4%), followed by adverse events (73.8%). By contrast, assessment of physical functioning (29.8%), improvement and satisfaction (14.1%), and emotional functioning (6.8%) occurred less frequently. Studies of a better methodological quality tended to use more different domains. Nevertheless, combinations of more than 2 domains were rare, failing to comprehensively capture the bio-psycho-social aspects of endometriosis-associated pain. The PROMs used showed an even broader heterogeneity across all studies. Our findings underscore the large heterogeneity of assessed domains and PROMs in clinical pain-related endometriosis trials. This highlights the urgent need for a standardized approach to both, assessed domains and high-quality PROMs ideally realized through development and implementation of a core outcome set, encompassing the most pivotal domains and PROMs for both, stakeholders and patients.

Phenotyping peripheral neuropathies with and without pruritus: a cross-sectional multicenter study.

ABSTRACT: Pruritus often escapes physicians' attention in patients with peripheral neuropathy (PNP). Here we aimed to characterize neuropathic pruritus in a cohort of 191 patients with PNP (large, mixed, or small fiber) and 57 control subjects with deep phenotyping in a multicenter cross-sectional observational study at 3 German sites. All participants underwent thorough neurological examination, nerve conduction studies, quantitative sensory testing, and skin biopsies to assess intraepidermal nerve fiber density. Patients filled in a set of questionnaires assessing the characteristics of pruritus and pain, the presence of depression and anxiety, and quality of life. Based on the severity of pruritus and pain, patients were grouped into 4 groups: "pruritus," "pain," "pruritus and pain," and "no pruritus/no pain." Although 11% (21/191) of patients reported pruritus as their only symptom, further 34.6% (66/191) reported pruritus and pain. Patients with pain (with or without pruritus) were more affected by anxiety, depression, and reduced quality of life than control subjects. Patients with pruritus (with and without pain) had increases in cold detection threshold, showing Aδ-fiber dysfunction. The pruritus group had lower intraepidermal nerve fiber density at the thigh, concomitant with a more proximal distribution of symptoms compared with the other PNP groups. Stratification of patients with PNP by using cross-sectional datasets and multinominal logistic regression analysis revealed distinct patterns for the patient groups. Together, our study sheds light on the presence of neuropathic pruritus in patients with PNP and its relationship with neuropathic pain, outlines the sensory and structural abnormalities associated with neuropathic pruritus, and highlights its impact on anxiety levels.

Embedding textile capacitive sensing into smart wearables as a versatile solution for human motion capturing.

This work presents a novel and versatile approach to employ textile capacitive sensing as an effective solution for capturing human body movement through fashionable and everyday-life garments. Conductive textile patches are utilized for sensing the movement, working without the need for strain or direct body contact, wherefore the patches can sense only from their deformation within the garment. This principle allows the sensing area to be decoupled from the wearer's body for improved wearing comfort and more pleasant integration. We demonstrate our technology based on multiple prototypes which have been developed by an interdisciplinary team of electrical engineers, computer scientists, digital artists, and smart fashion designers through several iterations to seamlessly incorporate the technology of capacitive sensing with corresponding design considerations into textile materials. The resulting accumulation of textile capacitive sensing wearables showcases the versatile application possibilities of our technology from single-joint angle measurements towards multi-joint body part tracking.

The Impact of Music Perception on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST).

Objective: The impact of listening to music on pain perception has been evaluated using questionnaires and numeric/visual analogue scales. In this study, the impact of music perception on sensory pain functions was measured by means of quantitative sensory testing. Methods: We enrolled 10 female and 10 male healthy subjects (10 of them were professional musicians). All subjects underwent, in total, four quantitative sensory testing measures (first: baseline; second: after pleasant music [Johannes Brahms, 3rd symphony, 3rd movement]; third: after unpleasant music [Krzysztof Penderecki, Threnos]; fourth: after a longer break). The pleasantness of music was evaluated using the Ertel differential scale. Results: After the participants listened to pleasant music, an increased sensitivity to cold stimuli (both threshold and pain), to mechanical stimuli (only for threshold), and to repeated stimuli (wind-up reaction) was noted. Listening to unpleasant music was not associated with changes in sensitivity. We did not observe any significant differences between male and female subjects or between musicians and non-musicians. There was no significant correlation between the rating of the music as pleasant/unpleasant and the different quantitative sensory testing measures. Conclusions: Our data show that listening to music inducing a pleasant feeling can increase the sensitivity to stimuli applied during a quantitative sensory testing session. This should be considered when performing or interpreting quantitative sensory testing examinations. Interestingly, this finding is in contrast to the observation that listening to music can decrease pain perception during painful procedures.

Perioperative pain management with regional analgesia techniques for visceral cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Regional analgesia following visceral cancer surgery might provide an advantage but evidence for best treatment options related to risk-benefit is unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and GRADE assessment. SETTING: Postoperative pain treatment. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing visceral cancer surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any kind of peripheral (PRA) or epidural analgesia (EA) with/without systemic analgesia (SA) was compared to SA with or without placebo treatment or any other regional anaesthetic techniques. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest and during activity 24 h after surgery, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and postoperative paralytic ileus. MAIN RESULTS: 59 RCTs (4345 participants) were included. EA may reduce pain intensity at rest (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.35 to -0.75, low certainty evidence) and during activity 24 h after surgery (MD -1.83; 95% CI: -2.34 to -1.33, very low certainty evidence). PRA likely results in little difference in pain intensity at rest (MD -0.75; 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.31, moderate certainty evidence) and pain during activity (MD -0.93; 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.53, moderate certainty evidence) 24 h after surgery compared to SA. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (very low certainty evidence) and development of paralytic ileus (very low certainty of evidence) between EA, respectively PRA and SA. CONCLUSIONS: Following visceral cancer surgery EA may reduce pain intensity. In contrast, PRA had only limited effects on pain intensity at rest and during activity. However, we are uncertain regarding the effect of both techniques on block-related adverse events and paralytic ileus. Further research is required focusing on regional analgesia techniques especially following laparoscopic visceral cancer surgery.

Chronic postsurgical pain: A European survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a clinical problem, and large prospective studies are needed to determine its incidence, characteristics, and risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To find predictive factors for CPSP in an international survey. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Multicentre European prospective observational trial. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, sternotomy, endometriosis surgery, or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHOD: Standardised questionnaires were completed by the patients at 1, 3, and 7 days, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, with follow-up via E-mail, telephone, or interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary goal of NIT-1 was to propose a scoring system to predict those patient likely to have CPSP at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 3297 patients were included from 18 hospitals across Europe and 2494 patients were followed-up for 6 months. The mean incidence of CPSP at 6 months was 10.5%, with variations depending on the type of surgery: sternotomy 6.9%, breast surgery 7.4%, TKA 12.9%, endometriosis 16.2%. At 6 months, neuropathic characteristics were frequent for all types of surgery: sternotomy 33.3%, breast surgery 67.6%, TKA 42.4%, endometriosis 41.4%. One-third of patients experienced CPSP at both 3 and 6 months. Pre-operative pain was frequent for TKA (leg pain) and endometriosis (abdomen) and its frequency and intensity were reduced after surgery. Severe CPSP and a neuropathic pain component decreased psychological and functional wellbeing as well as quality of life. No overarching CPSP risk factors were identified. CONCLUSION: Unfortunately, our findings do not offer a new CPSP predictive score. However, we present reliable new data on the incidence, characteristics, and consequences of CPSP from a large European survey. Interesting new data on the time course of CPSP, its neuropathic pain component, and CPSP after endometriosis surgery generate new hypotheses but need to be confirmed by further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03834922.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus. RESULTS: 82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults. CONCLUSION: This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Studying serum neurofilament light chain levels as a potential new biomarker for small fiber neuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diagnosing small fiber neuropathies can be challenging. To address this issue, whether serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) could serve as a potential biomarker of damage to epidermal Aδ- and C-fibers was tested. METHODS: Serum NfL levels were assessed in 30 patients diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy and were compared to a control group of 19 healthy individuals. Electrophysiological studies, quantitative sensory testing and quantification of intraepidermal nerve fiber density after skin biopsy were performed in both the proximal and distal leg. RESULTS: Serum NfL levels were not increased in patients with small fiber neuropathy compared to healthy controls (9.1 ± 3.9 and 9.4 ± 3.8, p = 0.83) and did not correlate with intraepidermal nerve fiber density at the lateral calf or lateral thigh or with other parameters of small fiber impairment. CONCLUSION: Serum NfL levels cannot serve as a biomarker for small fiber damage.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1).

INTRODUCTION: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal. METHODS: Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score. RESULTS: All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Perioperative pain management models in four European countries: A narrative review of differences, similarities and future directions.

There is general agreement that acute pain management is an important component of perioperative medicine. However, there is no consensus on the best model of care for perioperative pain management, mainly because evidence is missing in many aspects. Comparing the similarities and differences between countries might reveal some insights into different organisational models and how they work. Here, we performed a narrative review to describe and compare the structures, processes and outcomes of perioperative pain management in the healthcare systems of four European countries using Donabedian's framework as a guide. Our comparison revealed many similarities, differences and gaps. Different structures of acute pain services in the four countries with no common definition and standards of care were found. Protocols have been implemented in all countries and guidelines in some. If outcome is assessed, it is mainly pain intensity, and many patients experiencing more intense pain than others have common risk factors (e.g. preoperative pain, preoperative opioid intake, female sex and young age). Outcome assessment beyond pain intensity (such as pain-related physical function, which is important for early rehabilitation and recovery) is currently not well implemented. Developing common quality indicators, a European guideline for perioperative pain management (e.g. for patients at high risk for experiencing severe pain and other outcome parameters) and common criteria for acute pain services might pave the way forward for improving acute pain management in Europe. Finally, the education of general and specialist staff should be aligned in Europe, for example, by using the curricula of the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

Responsiveness of multiple patient-reported outcome measures for acute postsurgical pain: primary results from the international multi-centre PROMPT NIT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical outcome measures are crucial to define the efficacy of perioperative pain management; however, it is unclear which are most appropriate. We conducted a prospective study aiming to assess sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures assessing the core outcome set of domains pain intensity (at rest/during activity), physical function, adverse events, and self-efficacy. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively, on day 1 (d1), d3, and d7 after four surgical procedures (total knee replacement, breast surgery, endometriosis-related surgery, and sternotomy). Primary outcomes were sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures analysed by correlating their changes (d1-d3) with patients' global impression of change and patients' specific impression of change items as anchor criteria. Secondary outcomes included identification of baseline and patient characteristic variables explaining variance in change for each of the scales and descriptive analysis of various patient-reported outcome measures from different domains and after different surgeries. RESULTS: Of 3322 patients included (18 hospitals, 10 countries), data from 2661 patients were analysed. All patient-reported outcome measures improved on average over time; the median calculated sensitivity-to-change for all patient-reported outcome measures (overall surgeries) was 0.22 (range: 0.07-0.31, scale: 0-10); all changes were independent of baseline data or patient characteristics and similar between different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Pain-related patient-reported outcome measures have low to moderate sensitivity-to-change; those showing higher sensitivity-to-change from the same domain should be considered for inclusion in a core outcome set of patient-reported outcome measures to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system.

ABSTRACT: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

Machine learning and artificial intelligence in neuroscience: A primer for researchers.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often used to describe the automation of complex tasks that we would attribute intelligence to. Machine learning (ML) is commonly understood as a set of methods used to develop an AI. Both have seen a recent boom in usage, both in scientific and commercial fields. For the scientific community, ML can solve bottle necks created by complex, multi-dimensional data generated, for example, by functional brain imaging or *omics approaches. ML can here identify patterns that could not have been found using traditional statistic approaches. However, ML comes with serious limitations that need to be kept in mind: their tendency to optimise solutions for the input data means it is of crucial importance to externally validate any findings before considering them more than a hypothesis. Their black-box nature implies that their decisions usually cannot be understood, which renders their use in medical decision making problematic and can lead to ethical issues. Here, we present an introduction for the curious to the field of ML/AI. We explain the principles as commonly used methods as well as recent methodological advancements before we discuss risks and what we see as future directions of the field. Finally, we show practical examples of neuroscience to illustrate the use and limitations of ML.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.