Assessing the quality, efficacy, and effectiveness of the current evidence base of active self-care complementary and integrative medicine therapies for the management of chronic pain: a rapid evidence assessment of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain management typically consists of prescription medications or provider-based, behavioral, or interventional procedures that are often ineffective, may be costly, and can be associated with undesirable side effects. Because chronic pain affects the whole person (body, mind, and spirit), patient-centered complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) therapies that acknowledge the patients' roles in their own healing processes have the potential to provide more efficient and comprehensive chronic pain management. Active self-care CIM (ACT-CIM) therapies allow for a more diverse, patient-centered treatment of complex symptoms, promote self-management, and are relatively safe and cost-effective. To date, there are no systematic reviews examining the full range of ACT-CIM used for chronic pain symptom management. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using Samueli Institute's Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature methodology, to rigorously assess both the quality of the research on ACT-CIM modalities and the evidence for their efficacy and effectiveness in treating chronic pain symptoms. A working group of subject matter experts was also convened to evaluate the overall literature pool and develop recommendations for the use and implementation of these modalities. RESULTS: Following key database searches, 146 randomized controlled trials were included in the review. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides an introduction and background to the review, summarizes the methodological processes involved, details the initial results, and identifies strengths and weakness of the review. Specific results of the review as well as overall recommendations for moving this field of research forward are detailed throughout the current Pain Medicine supplement.

The effectiveness of acupuncture research across components of the trauma spectrum response (tsr): a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbid symptoms (for example, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and fatigue) are particularly common in military fighters returning from the current conflicts, who have experienced physical and/or psychological trauma. These overlapping conditions cut across the boundaries of mind, brain and body, resulting in a common symptomatic and functional spectrum of physical, cognitive, psychological and behavioral effects referred to as the 'Trauma Spectrum Response' (TSR). While acupuncture has been shown to treat some of these components effectively, the current literature is often difficult to interpret, inconsistent or of variable quality. Thus, to gauge comprehensively the effectiveness of acupuncture across TSR components, a systematic review of reviews was conducted using the Samueli Institute's Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL©) methodology. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to September 2011 for systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Quality assessment was rigorously performed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 50) checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Adherence to the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials in Acupuncture (STRICTA) criteria was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1,480 citations identified by our searches, 52 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, all high quality except for one, met inclusion criteria for each TSR component except post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sexual function. The majority of reviews addressed most STRICTA components, but did not describe safety. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of our review, acupuncture appears to be effective for treating headaches and, although more research is needed, seems to be a promising treatment option for anxiety, sleep disturbances, depression and chronic pain. It does not, however, demonstrate any substantial treatment benefit for substance abuse. Because there were no reviews on PTSD or sexual function that met our pre-defined inclusion criteria, we cannot comment on acupuncture's effectiveness in treating these conditions. More quality data are also needed to determine whether acupuncture is appropriate for treating fatigue or cognitive difficulties. Further, while acupuncture has been shown to be generally safe, safety was not described in the majority of studies, making it difficult to provide any strong recommendations. Future research should address safety reporting in detail in order to increase our confidence in acupuncture's efficacy across the identified TSR components.

Patient-based outcome assessment instruments in acupuncture research.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment can support the therapeutic process by providing a way to track symptoms and functionality over time, providing insights to clinicians and patients, as well as offering a common language to discuss patient behavior/functioning. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we examine the patient-based outcome assessment (PBOA) instruments that have been used to determine outcomes in acupuncture clinical research and highlight measures that are feasible, practical, economical, reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. The aims of this review were to assess and identify the commonly available PBOA measures, describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and address the challenges associated with these measures and acupuncture. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. A total of 582 abstracts were reviewed using PubMed (from inception through April 2009). RESULTS: A total of 582 citations were identified. After screening of title/abstract, 212 articles were excluded. From the remaining 370 citations, 258 manuscripts identified explicit PBOA; 112 abstracts did not include any PBOA. The five most common PBOA instruments identified were the Visual Analog Scale, Symptom Diary, Numerical Pain Rating Scales, SF-36, and depression scales such as the Beck Depression Inventory. CONCLUSIONS: The way a questionnaire or scale is administered can have an effect on the outcome. Also, developing and validating outcome measures can be costly and difficult. Therefore, reviewing the literature on existing measures before creating or modifying PBOA instruments can significantly reduce the burden of developing a new measure.