SynthesisPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2023
Amputation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Meta-Analysis and Validation of a Histopathology Scoring System.
Synthesis in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePathology can provide crucial insights into the etiology of disease. The goal of this review is to evaluate the rigor of histopathology reports of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).
methodsA systematic search of multiple databases identified papers that described amputation for CRPS with pathology findings. Control pathology articles were randomly chosen from the same journals. Landmark articles in Surgical Pathology were previously identified. Papers were categorized by the use of histology: Anatomic (microscopic description), Diagnostic (binary result), and Substrate (special studies only). A novel Histopathology Score assigned 1 point for each of 10 History elements and 15 Pathology elements. All articles were scored and analyzed by appropriate statistics.
resultsThe search identified 22 CRPS, 50 Control and 50 Landmark articles. Multivariable analysis of the Pathology Score showed a significantly higher score for Anatomic vs Non-Anatomic papers (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 1.54, P < .001) and Landmark vs CRPS articles (IRR 1.39, P value .003). CRPS papers reported some elements infrequently: diagnostic criteria (31.8%), routine stain (50%), any clinic-pathologic correlation (40.9%), and sample size >2 (27.3%).
conclusionsThe Pathology Score is a useful quality assessment tool to evaluate studies. As expected, Anatomic papers scored significantly higher than Non-Anatomic papers. CRPS papers had small sample sizes (median 1) and infrequent reporting of diagnostic criteria, routine stain, any clinical pathologic correlation. These particular elements are crucial for analyzing and reviewing pathologic features. The analysis explains why it is quite difficult to write a meaningful systematic review of CRPS histology at this time.
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.