Pain

Introduction
Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective
The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods
The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results
After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion
The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Keywords: back pain, intervention, clinical guideline, spinal cord stimulation, minimally invasive spine procedure, lumbar disorder, epidural steroid injection, radiofrequency ablation

Background: Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

Objectives: To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

Selection criteria: We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

Main results: We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

Authors' conclusions: This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory disease defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus, which causes pelvic pain and infertility. This disease should be viewed as a public health problem with a major effect on the quality of life of women as well as being a substantial economic burden. In light of the considerable progress with diagnostic imaging (for example, transvaginal ultrasound and MRI), exploratory laparoscopy should no longer be used to diagnose endometriotic lesions. Instead, diagnosis of endometriosis should be based on a structured process involving the combination of patient interviews, clinical examination and imaging. Notably, a diagnosis of endometriosis often leads to immediate surgery. Therefore, rethinking the diagnosis and management of endometriosis is warranted. Instead of assessing endometriosis on the day of the diagnosis, gynaecologists should consider the patient's 'endometriosis life'. Medical treatment is the first-line therapeutic option for patients with pelvic pain and no desire for immediate pregnancy. In women with infertility, careful consideration should be made regarding whether to provide assisted reproductive technologies prior to performing endometriosis surgery. Modern endometriosis management should be individualized with a patient-centred, multi-modal and interdisciplinary integrated approach.