Journal of Pain Research (Aug 2022)
Reported Outcomes in Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials
Abstract
Huan-Ji Dong, Björn Gerdle, Elena Dragioti Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, SwedenCorrespondence: Huan-Ji Dong, Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, Email [email protected]: There is considerable diversity of outcome selections and methodologies for handling the multiple outcomes across all systematic reviews (SRs) of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment (IPT) due to the complexity. This diversity presents difficulties for healthcare decision makers. Better recommendations about how to select outcomes in SRs (with or without meta-analysis) are needed to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT.Objective: This overview systematically collates the reported outcomes and measurements of IPT across published SRs and identifies the methodological characteristics. Additionally, we provide some suggestions on framing the selection of outcomes and on conducting SRs of IPT.Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos) and the PROSPERO registry for ongoing SR were supplemented with hand-searching ending on 30 September 2021.Results: We included 18 SRs with data on 49007 people from 356 primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs); eight were followed by meta-analysis and ten used narrative syntheses of data. For all the SRs, pain was the most common reported outcome (72%), followed by disability/functional status (61%) and working status (61%). Psychological well-being and quality of life were also reported in half of the included SR (50%). The core outcome domains according to VAPAIN, IMMPACT, and PROMIS were seldom met. The methodological quality varied from critically low to moderate according to AMSTAR2. The AMSTAR2 rating was negatively correlated to the number of outcome domains in PROMIS, and VAPAIN was positively correlated with IMMPACT and PROMIS, indicating the intercorrelations between the reported outcomes.Conclusion: This systematic overview showed wide-ranging disparity in reported outcomes and applied outcome domains in SRs evaluating IPT interventions for chronic pain conditions. The intercorrelations between the reported outcomes should be appropriately handled in future research. Some approaches are discussed as well.Keywords: interdisciplinary pain treatment, interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program, multimodal rehabilitation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, biopsychosocial pain rehabilitation, pain management program, chronic pain, outcome domains, intercorrelation
