TY - JOUR
T1 - Management of chronic neuropathic pain
T2 - A protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
AU - Mulla, Sohail M.
AU - Buckley, D. Norman
AU - Moulin, Dwight E.
AU - Couban, Rachel
AU - Izhar, Zain
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Panju, Akbar
AU - Wang, Li
AU - Kallyth, Sun Makosso
AU - Turan, Alparslan
AU - Montori, Victor M.
AU - Sessler, Daniel I.
AU - Thabane, Lehana
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
AU - Busse, Jason W.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Introduction: Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysis: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.Ethics and Dissemination: We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
AB - Introduction: Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysis: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.Ethics and Dissemination: We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84912026385&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84912026385&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006112
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006112
M3 - Article
C2 - 25412864
AN - SCOPUS:84912026385
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 4
JO - BMJ open
JF - BMJ open
IS - 11
M1 - 006112
ER -