How predictive is peer review for gauging impact? The association between reviewer rating scores, publication status, and article impact measured by citations in a pain subspecialty journal.

BACKGROUND: Peer review represents a cornerstone of the scientific process, yet few studies have evaluated its association with scientific impact. The objective of this study is to assess the association of peer review scores with measures of impact for manuscripts submitted and ultimately published. METHODS: 3173 manuscripts submitted to Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) between August 2018 and October 2021 were analyzed, with those containing an abstract included. Articles were categorized by topic, type, acceptance status, author demographics and open-access status. Articles were scored based on means for the initial peer review where each reviewer's recommendation was assigned a number: 5 for 'accept', 3 for 'minor revision', 2 for 'major revision' and 0 for 'reject'. Articles were further classified by whether any reviewers recommended 'reject'. Rejected articles were analyzed to determine whether they were subsequently published in an indexed journal, and their citations were compared with those of accepted articles when the impact factor was <1.4 points lower than RAPM's 5.1 impact factor. The main outcome measure was the number of Clarivate citations within 2 years from publication. Secondary outcome measures were Google Scholar citations within 2 years and Altmetric score. RESULTS: 422 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. There was no significant correlation between the number of Clarivate 2-year review citations and reviewer rating score (r=0.038, p=0.47), Google Scholar citations (r=0.053, p=0.31) or Altmetric score (p=0.38). There was no significant difference in 2-year Clarivate citations between accepted (median (IQR) 5 (2-10)) and rejected manuscripts published in journals with impact factors >3.7 (median 5 (2-7); p=0.39). Altmetric score was significantly higher for RAPM-published papers compared with RAPM-rejected ones (median 10 (5-17) vs 1 (0-2); p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Peer review rating scores were not associated with citations, though the impact of peer review on quality and association with other metrics remains unclear.

Differences in the association between epidural analgesia and length of stay by surgery type: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a decline in the use of thoracic epidural analgesia related in part to concerns for delayed discharge, it is unknown whether changes in length of stay (LOS) associated with epidural analgesia vary by surgery type. Therefore, we determined the degree to which the association between epidural analgesia (vs no epidural) and LOS differed by surgery type. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using data from 1747 patients who had either non-emergent open abdominal, thoracic, or vascular surgery at a single tertiary academic hospital. The primary outcome was hospital LOS and the incidence of a prolonged hospital LOS defined as 21 days or longer. Secondary endpoints included escalation of care, 30-day all-cause readmission, and reason for epidural not being placed. The association between epidural status and dichotomous endpoints was examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 1747 patients, 85.7% (1499) received epidural analgesia. 78% (1364) underwent abdominal, 11.5% (200) thoracic, and 10.5% (183) vascular surgeries. After adjustment for differences, receiving epidural analgesia (vs no epidural) was associated with a 45% reduction in the likelihood of a prolonged LOS (p<0.05). This relationship varied by surgery type: abdominal (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.79, p<0.001), vascular (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 16.1, p=0.14), and thoracic (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.70, p=0.93). Among abdominal surgical patients, epidural analgesia was associated with a median decrease in LOS by 1.4 days and a 37% reduction in the likelihood of 30-day readmission (adjusted OR 0.63, 0.41 to 0.97, p<0.05). Among thoracic surgical patients, epidural analgesia was associated with a median increase in LOS by 3.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between epidural analgesia and LOS appears to be different among different surgical populations.

Integrating mechanistic-based and classification-based concepts into perioperative pain management: an educational guide for acute pain physicians.

Chronic pain begins with acute pain. Physicians tend to classify pain by duration (acute vs chronic) and mechanism (nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic). Although this taxonomy may facilitate diagnosis and documentation, such categories are to some degree arbitrary constructs, with significant overlap in terms of mechanisms and treatments. In clinical practice, there are myriad different definitions for chronic pain and a substantial portion of chronic pain involves mixed phenotypes. Classification of pain based on acuity and mechanisms informs management at all levels and constitutes a critical part of guidelines and treatment for chronic pain care. Yet specialty care is often siloed, with advances in understanding lagging years behind in some areas in which these developments should be at the forefront of clinical practice. For example, in perioperative pain management, enhanced recovery protocols are not standardized and tend to drive treatment without consideration of mechanisms, which in many cases may be incongruent with personalized medicine and mechanism-based treatment. In this educational document, we discuss mechanisms and classification of pain as it pertains to commonly performed surgical procedures. Our goal is to provide a clinical reference for the acute pain physician to facilitate pain management decision-making (both diagnosis and therapy) in the perioperative period.

Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. RESULTS: Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. RECOMMENDATION: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

The association of prescription opioid use with incident cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, and researchers seek to identify modifiable risk factors Over the past several decades, there has been ongoing debate whether opioids are associated with cancer development, metastasis, or recurrence. Basic science, clinical, and observational studies have produced conflicting results. The authors examined the association between prescription opioids and incident cancers using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. A complex relation was observed between prescription opioids and incident cancer, and cancer site may be an important determinant. METHODS: By using linked SEER cancer registry and Medicare claims from 2008 through 2013, a case-control study was conducted examining the relation between cancer onset and prior opioid exposure. Logistic regression was used to account for differences between cases and controls for 10 cancer sites. RESULTS: Of the population studied (n = 348,319), 34% were prescribed opioids, 79.5% were white, 36.9% were dually eligible (for both Medicare and Medicaid), 13% lived in a rural area, 52.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 16% had a smoking-related diagnosis. Patients exposed to opioids had a lower odds ratio (OR) associated with breast cancer (adjusted OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and colon cancer (adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93) compared with controls. Higher ORs for kidney cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, lung cancer, and lymphoma, ranging from lung cancer (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) to liver cancer (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.31), were present in the exposed population. CONCLUSIONS: The current results suggest that an association exists between prescription opioids and incident cancer and that cancer site may play an important role. These findings can direct future research on specific patient populations that may benefit or be harmed by prescription opioid exposure.

Economic Burden of Postoperative Neurocognitive Disorders Among US Medicare Patients.

Importance: Postoperative neurocognitive disorders (PNDs) after surgical procedures are common and may be associated with increased health care expenditures. Objective: To quantify the economic burden associated with a PND diagnosis in 1 year following surgical treatment among older patients in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Model from 4285 hospitals that submitted Medicare Fee-for-service (FFS) claims between January 2013 and December 2016. All Medicare patients aged 65 years or older who underwent an inpatient hospital admission associated with a surgical procedure, did not experience a PND before index admission, and were not undergoing dialysis or concurrently enrolled in Medicaid were included. Data were analyzed from October 2019 and May 2020. Exposures: PND, defined as an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision, diagnosis of delirium, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia within 1 year of discharge from the index surgical admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total inflation-adjusted Medicare postacute care payments within 1 year after the index surgical procedure. Results: A total of 2 380 473 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.36 (7.31) years; 1 336 736 [56.1%] women) who underwent surgical procedures were included, of whom 44 974 patients (1.9%) were diagnosed with a PND. Among all patients, most were White (2 142 157 patients [90.0%]), presenting for orthopedic surgery (1 523 782 patients [64.0%]) in urban medical centers (2 179 893 patients [91.6%]) that were private nonprofits (1 798 749 patients [75.6%]). Patients with a PND, compared with those without a PND, experienced a significantly longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 5.91 [6.01] days vs 4.29 [4.18] days; P < .001), were less likely to be discharged home (9947 patients [22.1%] vs 914 925 patients [39.2%]; P < .001), and had a higher incidence of mortality at 1 year after treatment (4580 patients [10.2%] vs 103 767 patients [4.4%]; P < .001). After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the presence of a PND within 1 year of the index procedure was associated with an increase of $17 275 (95% CI, $17 058-$17 491) in cost in the 1-year postadmission period (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that among older Medicare patients undergoing surgical treatment, a diagnosis of a PND was associated with an increase in health care costs for up to 1 year following the surgical procedure. Given the magnitude of this cost burden, PNDs represent an appealing target for risk mitigation and improvement in value-based health care.