Uses of simulation-based education for anesthesiology training, certification and recertification: A scoping review.

Objectives: To conduct a comprehensive scoping review focusing on published anesthesiology-specific training based on simulation to assess up-to-date uses of simulation-based education in anesthesiology training. Our goal was to establish a solid ground for building standardized and accredited curricula for simulation-based education in the specialty of anesthesia in the near future. Methods: We searched the PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases on May 10, 2021 for relevant articles. We followed the five-stage scoping review methodology: identifying a research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and synthesis of results. Results: Our initial electronic search identified 5609 potential articles. After abstract screening and removing duplicates, 636 articles were evaluated in full text for inclusion or exclusion. Based on this strategy, 283 articles were included in this review. We mapped the current practice of simulation in training and certification across different anesthesiology subspecialties. Conclusions: Significant effort has been placed into the use of simulation for training, certification, and recertification in anesthesiology. Future effort to develop simulation-based training that can be generalized to trainees in this specialty, similar to other fields such as aviation and space sciences, will enhance the standardization of training and hence patient safety.

Scoping Review of Off-Label Topical Analgesia in Palliative, Hospice and Cancer Care: Towards Flexibility in Evidence-Based Medicine.

PURPOSE: Scoping reviews address the nature of the literature per se rather than inferring evidence-based treatment guidelines. Scoping reviews of the published literature are intended to describe the aggregated nature of the evidence surrounding some agent or intervention, in contrast to systematic reviews that seek when possible to guide clinical practice. We conducted a scoping review to identify reports of potential clinical utility of off-label topical analgesics and adjuvants when FDA-approved treatments have proven inadequate. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) for articles dating from 1947 to the present. Mindful that FDA-approved and WHO-recommended analgesic medications often prove inadequate for individual patients in extremis with palliative, hospice or cancer pain, we used broad, structured inclusion criteria to retrieve articles. RESULTS: We retrieved 12,100 articles; after screening, we had 39 reports addressing 19 different topical agents out of the 32 chemical entities. Our scoping review disclosed evidence about agents that might not have met inclusion criteria for clinical practice guidelines. DISCUSSION: Although generally considered lower quality evidence, case reports or series present suggestions for diverse topical medications to manage pain in challenging circumstances when high-quality evidence for agents and routes of administration is lacking. CONCLUSION: Patients with the greatest need for evidence to identify and guide lesser-used agents during aggressive pain management are the most difficult to enroll and follow in standardized, controlled and/or blinded clinical trials. This scoping review identifies medications, dosages, and routes of topical agents reported to be effective in these often-challenging circumstances. Until larger and higher quality studies are completed, we must rely on the best available evidence even if of lower quality.

Topical anaesthetics for pain control during repair of dermal laceration.

BACKGROUND: Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.

Durations of Opioid, Nonopioid Drug, and Behavioral Clinical Trials for Chronic Pain: Adequate or Inadequate?

OBJECTIVES: A recent US federal review and clinical guideline on opioids for chronic pain asserted that the literature contributes no evidence on efficacy because all trials had "inadequate duration." To explore the evidence, we examined durations of studies on opioid, nonopioid drug, and behavioral therapies for chronic pain. METHODS: We retrieved Cochrane reviews of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, NSAIDs, opioids, or behavioral interventions for chronic pain. We also examined all opioid treatment studies retrieved for the federal evidence report but excluded due to "inadequate duration." RESULTS: Of 378 Cochrane reviews retrieved, 72 evaluated one of the five therapies. Six of these 72 were excluded because they were proposals without data or investigated acute pain. Fourteen addressed multiple interventions, leaving 52 for analysis. We graphed numbers of trials vs duration for the five treatments reviewed in the Cochrane Library, compared with durations of opioid trials dropped from the federal evidence report. Most graphs were overdispersed Poisson distributions. Nearly all trials had active treatment durations of 12 weeks or less. CONCLUSIONS: No common nonopioid treatment for chronic pain has been studied in aggregate over longer intervals of active treatment than opioids. To dismiss trials as "inadequate" if their observation period is a year or less is inconsistent with current regulatory standards. The literature on major drug and nondrug treatments for chronic pain reveals similarly shaped distributions across modalities. Considering only duration of active treatment in efficacy or effectiveness trials, published evidence is no stronger for any major drug category or behavioral therapy than for opioids.