Background Phantom limb pain (PLP)-pain felt in the amputated limb-is often accompanied by significant suffering. Estimates of the burden of PLP have provided conflicting data. To obtain a robust estimate of the burden of PLP, we gathered and critically appraised the literature on the prevalence and risk factors associated with PLP in people with limb amputations. Methods Articles published between 1980 and July 2019 were identified through a systematic search of the following electronic databases:

BackgroundThe prevalence of phantom limb pain (PLP) in people with amputations is unclear because of the conflicting reports across the literature. It is proposed that the conflicting reports on the prevalence of PLP are a consequence of variations in the time period during which the studies were undertaken, countries in which the studies were conducted and recruitment processes implemented during collection of epidemiological data. In consideration of these factors, we aim to gather and critically appraise relevant literature to determine the prevalence estimate of and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations.MethodsWe will use a customised search strategy containing relevant words and terms to search the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost), PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (via EBSCOhost), Africa-Wide Information (via EBSCOhost), Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition (via EBSCOhost) SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier (via EBSCOhost). The risk of bias assessment will be conducted using a risk of bias assessment tool for prevalence studies, and data will be extracted using a piloted customised data extraction sheet. Data extracted from individual studies will be entered into Review Manager 5 and assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Studies will be pooled for meta-analysis using the random-effects model to determine a summary estimate of the prevalence of PLP across included studies. A statistically significant level will be set at p < 0.05.DiscussionAs far as we know, a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of, and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations has not been conducted. Given the varying reports in the literature, it is necessary to determine an estimate of the prevalence of PLP to generate an informed conclusion on this subject. The results of this review will be published in an internationally accredited journal and used to inform researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and the public about the burden of, and risk factors for PLP. This will be done with a further aim to improve the quality of pain management in society.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018094821Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0938-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and objective Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common complication in people with limb amputations. There are conflicting reports in the literature regarding the prevalence of PLP in people with limb amputations. Therefore, this review aimed to determine the estimated pooled prevalence of PLP, and risk factors associated with this complication. Methods Articles published between 1980 and July 2019 were identified through a systematic search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Africa−Wide Information, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier. Grey literature was searched on databases for preprints. Two reviewers independently performed the screening of articles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The meta−analyses were conducted using the random−effects model. A statistically significant level for the analyses was set at p>0.05. Results The pooling of all studies demonstrated a prevalence estimate of 63% [95% CI: 58.23−67.05] with high heterogeneity [I2=95.70% (95% CI: 95.10−96.20)]. The prevalence of PLP was significantly lower in developing countries compared to developed countries [53.98% vs 64.55%; p=0.04]. Persistent pre−operative pain, proximal site of amputation, lower limb amputation, stump pain and phantom sensations were identified as risk factors for PLP. Conclusion This systematic review and meta−analysis estimates that six of every 10 people with an amputation report PLP − a high and important prevalence of PLP. Health care professionals ought to be aware of the high rates of PLP and implement strategies to reduce PLP by addressing known risk factors, specifically those identified by the current study.

Pain is thought to be influenced by the threat value of the particular context in which it occurs. However, the mechanisms by which a threat achieves this influence on pain are unclear. Here, we explore how threat influences experimentally-induced secondary hyperalgesia, which is thought to be a manifestation of central sensitization. We developed an experimental study to investigate the effect of a manipulation of threat on experimentally-induced secondary hyperalgesia in 26 healthy human adults (16 identifying as female; 10 as male). We induced secondary hyperalgesia at both forearms using high-frequency electrical stimulation. Prior to the induction, we used a previously successful method to manipulate threat of tissue damage at one forearm (threat site). The effect of the threat manipulation was determined by comparing participant-rated anxiety, perceived threat, and pain during the experimental induction of secondary hyperalgesia, between the threat and control sites. We hypothesized that the threat site would show greater secondary hyperalgesia (primary outcome) and greater surface area (secondary outcome) of induced secondary hyperalgesia than the control site. Despite a thorough piloting procedure to test the threat manipulation, our data showed no main effect of site on pain, anxiety, or threat ratings during high-frequency electrical stimulation. In the light of no difference in threat between sites, the primary and secondary hypotheses cannot be tested. We discuss reasons why we were unable to replicate the efficacy of this established threat manipulation in our sample, including: (1) competition between threats, (2) generalization of learned threat value, (3) safety cues, (4) trust, and requirements for participant safety, (5) sampling bias, (6) sample-specific habituation to threat, and (7) implausibility of (sham) skin examination and report. Better strategies to manipulate threat are required for further research on the mechanisms by which threat influences pain.

BACKGROUND: Provision of timely, safe, and affordable surgical care is an essential component of any high-quality health system. Increasingly, it is recognized that poor quality of care in the perioperative period (before, during, and after surgery) may contribute to significant excess mortality and morbidity. Therefore, improving access to surgical procedures alone will not address the disparities in surgical outcomes globally until the quality of perioperative care is addressed. We aimed to identify key barriers to quality perioperative care delivery for 3 "Bellwether" procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and long-bone fracture fixation) in 5 low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Ten hospitals representing secondary and tertiary facilities from 5 LMICs were purposefully selected: 2 upper-middle income (Colombia and South Africa); 2 lower-middle income (Sri Lanka and Tanzania); and 1 lower income (Uganda). We used a rapid appraisal design (pathway mapping, ethnography, and interviews) to map out and explore the complexities of the perioperative pathway and care delivery for the Bellwether procedures. The framework approach was used for data analysis, with triangulation across different data sources to identify barriers in the country and pattern matching to identify common barriers across the 5 LMICs. RESULTS: We developed 25 pathway maps, undertook >30 periods of observation, and held >40 interviews with patients and clinical staff. Although the extent and impact of the barriers varied across the LMIC settings, 4 key common barriers to safe and effective perioperative care were identified: (1) the fragmented nature of the care pathways, (2) the limited human and structural resources available for the provision of care, (3) the direct and indirect costs of care for patients (even in health systems for which care is ostensibly free of charge), and (4) patients' low expectations of care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers to effective perioperative care in LMICs. Addressing these barriers is important if LMIC health systems are to provide safe, timely, and affordable provision of the Bellwether procedures. (Anesth Analg 2022;135:1217-32) KEY POINTS• Question: What are the key barriers to delivering quality perioperative care for patients undergoing a Bellwether procedure in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs)? • Findings: We found 4 key barriers to the delivery of timely and safe perioperative care: fragmented care pathways, limited human and structural resources, the cost of care to patients, and the patients' overall low expectations of care. • Meaning: To improve the quality and safety of surgical care and patient outcomes, work is required to overcome the identified barriers in perioperative care. GLOSSARY COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; HDU = high-dependency unit; HIC = high-income country; ICU = intensive care unit; IRB = institutional review board; LMIC = low-and middle-income country; RAP = rapid appraisal procedure

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates among surgical patients in Africa are double those of surgical patients in high-income countries. Internationally, there is a call to improve access to and safety of surgical and perioperative care. Perioperative research needs to be coordinated across Africa to positively impact perioperative mortality. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine the top 10 perioperative research priorities for perioperative nurses in Africa, using a research priority-setting process. A Delphi technique with 4 rounds was used to establish consensus on the top 10 perioperative research priorities. In the first round, respondents submitted research priorities. Similar research priorities were amalgamated into single priorities when possible. In round 2, respondents ranked the priorities using a scale from 1 to 10 (of which 1 is the first/highest priority, and 10 is the last/lowest priority). The top 20 (of 31) were determined after round 2. In round 3, respondents ranked their top 10 priorities. The final round was an online discussion to reach consensus on the top 10 perioperative research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 17 perioperative nurses representing 12 African countries determined the top research priorities, which were: (1) strategies to translate and implement perioperative research into clinical practice in Africa, (2) creating a perioperative research culture and the tools, resources, and funding needed to conduct perioperative nursing research in Africa, (3) optimizing nurse-led postoperative pain management, (4) survey of operating theater and critical care resources, (5) perception of, and adherence to sterile field and aseptic techniques among surgeons in Africa (6) surgical staff burnout, (7) broad principles of infection control in surgical wards, (8) the role of interprofessional communication to promote clinical teamwork when caring for surgical patients, (9) effective implementation of the surgical safety checklist and measures of its impact, and (10) constituents of quality nursing care. CONCLUSIONS:These research priorities provide the structure for an intermediate-term research agenda for perioperative research in Africa.

Background Neuropathic pain affects 7–10% of people, but responds poorly to pharmacotherapy, indicating a need for better treatments. Mechanistic research on neuropathic pain frequently uses human surrogate models of the secondary hyperalgesia that is a common feature of neuropathic pain. Experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia has been manipulated with pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods to clarify the relative contributions of different mechanisms to secondary hyperalgesia. However, this literature has not been systematically synthesised. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, describe, and compare methods that have been used to manipulate experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy humans. Methods A systematic search strategy will be supplemented by reference list checks and direct contact with identified laboratories to maximise the identification of data reporting the experimental manipulation of experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy humans. Duplicated screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction procedures will be used. Authors will be asked to provide data as necessary. Data will be pooled and meta-analyses conducted where possible, with subgrouping according to manipulation method. Manipulation methods will be ranked for potency and risk. Discussion The results of this review will provide a useful reference for researchers interested in using experimental methods to manipulate secondary hyperalgesia in humans and will help to clarify the relative contributions of different mechanisms to secondary hyperalgesia. Systematic review registration This protocol will be registered on PROSPERO before the review begins. Review records will be updated on PROSPERO once the review is complete. This review is intended for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Analyses and scripts will be made publicly available. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1120-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background It is often difficult for clinicians in African low‐ and middle‐income countries middle‐income countries to access useful aggregated data to identify areas for quality improvement. The aim of this Delphi study was to develop a standardised perioperative dataset for use in a registry. Methods A Delphi method was followed to achieve consensus on the data points to include in a minimum perioperative dataset. The study consisted of two electronic surveys, followed by an online discussion and a final electronic survey (four Rounds). Results Forty‐one members of the African Perioperative Research Group participated in the process. Forty data points were deemed important and feasible to include in a minimum dataset for electronic capturing during the perioperative workflow by clinicians. A smaller dataset consisting of eight variables to define risk‐adjusted perioperative mortality rate was also described. Conclusions The minimum perioperative dataset can be used in a collaborative effort to establish a resource accessible to African clinicians in improving quality of care.