ArticleSystematic reviews2019
The best treatment option(s) for adult and elderly patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rehabilitation interventions for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The changes of blood-based inflammatory biomarkers after non-pharmacologic interventions for chronic low back pain: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Placebo Responses and Their Clinical Implications in Fibromyalgia: A Meta-Analysis Using SSRI and SNRI Trials.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: disparity between synthesized evidence and real-world clinical practice.Pain reports · 2025Article
- "But when I come home…": How patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain account for their absent pain during naturally occurring clinical consultations.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2024Article
- Editorial: Highlights in musculoskeletal pain 2021/22.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sustained acoustic medicine for the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: An Update with Emphasis on Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
- Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: An Update with Emphasis on Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) is one subcategory of the new classification of chronic primary pain for the upcoming ICD-11, defined as chronic pain in the muscles, bones, joints, or tendons that persists or recurs for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or functional disability. An array of pharmacological, psychological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions is available for CPMP, for which previous research has demonstrated varying effect sizes with regard to effectiveness in pain reduction and other main outcomes. This highlights the need for the synthesis of all available evidence. The proposed network meta-analysis will compare all available interventions for CPMP to determine the best treatment option(s) with a focus on efficacy and safety of interventions.
methodsWe are interested in comparing interventions of the following types: psychological, pharmacological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions. We will include all randomized controlled trials that compare one intervention with another, or with a control group, in the treatment of CPMP. Primary efficacy outcomes will be pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability. Safety outcomes extracted will include proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events, unwanted events, or drop-out rates due to side effects. Published and unpublished trials will be sought through the search of all relevant databases and trial registries. At least two independent reviewers of the team will select the references and extract data independently. We will assess the risk of bias of each individual study using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will fit our model primarily within a Bayesian framework. DISCUSSION: CPMP is a disabling condition for which several interventions exist. To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis to systematically compare all available evidence. This is required by national health institutions to inform their decisions about the best available treatment option(s) with regard to efficacy and safety outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018096114.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.