Request a free trial Forgot your password?
  • The British Society for Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout
    Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56(7):e1-e20

    Bottom Line

    This guideline provides clear recommendations and pays attention to implementation and audit issues. The guideline group had a good representation of different expertise. However, lacking details about the evidence review methods lets it down.
  • Generic prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review
    BMJ OPEN. 2017;7(1)

    Bottom Line

    Currently, the available evidence suggested that pain intensity, widespread pain, high functional disability, somatization and movement restriction were some of the numerous generic prognostic factors that were associated with poor outcomes for musculoskeletal conditions, regardless of the pain site. Only studies published in English were included and no additional efforts were made to search for relevant studies, which meant that some relevant studies may have been missed. The reviewers were not independently involved in each review stage, which made it difficult to rule out reviewer error and bias.

    Risk of Bias Assessment

    Only studies published in English were considered for inclusion. No additional efforts were made to search for relevant studies. The reviewers were not independently involved in each review stage, which made it difficult to rule out reviewer error and bias.
  • Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;CD011419(2)

    Bottom Line

    The evidence suggested that liposomal bupivacaine appeared to reduce postoperative pain when compared to placebo at the site of surgery. The findings were likely to be reliable. Furthermore, large randomised controlled trials on the role of liposomal bupivacaine in this area were needed to support the current findings.

    Risk of Bias Assessment

    All domains were considered at low concern.
  • Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    BMC Med. 2017;15(1)

    Bottom Line

    The evidence indicates that lower back pain screening instruments used in primary care perform poorly by assigning higher risk scores to individuals with chronic pain than to those who do not. Whereas risks of a poor disability outcome and prolonged absenteeism are likely to be estimated with greater accuracy. A restriction to English language studies and absence of a full search strategy means that some relevant studies might have been missed. In addition, the robustness of the findings was not demonstrated. Further studies on these screening instruments for determining risk of poor outcome in adults with lower back pain are needed to support the current findings.

    Risk of Bias Assessment

    The search terms were reported, but full details of the search strategy were not reported, so it was not possible to judge if it was appropriate. Only English language publications were eligible. Robustness of the findings was not addressed.
...more