BackgroundPostoperative pain resulting from surgical trauma is a significant challenge for healthcare providers. Opioid analgesics are commonly used to treat postoperative pain; however, these drugs are associated with a number of undesirable side effects.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of acupuncture and acupuncture-related techniques in treating postoperative pain.Data SourceMEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched until Sep 30, 2014.Study Eligibility CriteriaRandomized controlled trials of adult subjects (≥ 18 years) who had undergone surgery and who had received acupuncture, electroacupuncture, or acupoint electrical stimulation for managing acute post-operative pain were included.ResultsWe found that patients treated with acupuncture or related techniques had less pain and used less opioid analgesics on Day 1 after surgery compared with those treated with control (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out approach indicated the findings are reliable and are not dependent on any one study. In addition, no publication bias was detected. Subgroup analysis indicated that conventional acupuncture and transcutaneous electric acupoint stimulation (TEAS) were associated with less postoperative pain one day following surgery than control treatment, while electroacupuncture was similar to control (P = 0.116). TEAS was associated with significantly greater reduction in opioid analgesic use on Day 1 post surgery than control (P < 0.001); however conventional acupuncture and electroacupuncture showed no benefit in reducing opioid analgesic use compared with control (P ≥ 0.142).ConclusionOur findings indicate that certain modes of acupuncture improved postoperative pain on the first day after surgery and reduced opioid use. Our findings support the use of acupuncture as adjuvant therapy in treating postoperative pain.

BackgroundSystematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review.MethodsA descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data.ResultsOf the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%).ConclusionsBeing able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.

BackgroundAlthough evidence-based practice (EBP) has been widely investigated, few studies have investigated its correlation with a clinical nursing ladder system. The current national study evaluates whether EBP implementation has been incorporated into the clinical ladder system.MethodsA cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted nationwide of registered nurses among regional hospitals of Taiwan in January to April 2011. Subjects were categorized into beginning nurses (N1 and N2) and advanced nurses (N3 and N4) by the clinical ladder system. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to adjust for possible confounding demographic factors.ResultsValid postal questionnaires were collected from 4,206 nurses, including 2,028 N1, 1,595 N2, 412 N3, and 171 N4 nurses. Advanced nurses were more aware of EBP than beginning nurses (p < 0.001; 90.7% vs. 78.0%). In addition, advanced nurses were more likely to hold positive beliefs about and attitudes toward EBP (p < 0.001) and possessed more sufficient knowledge of and skills in EBP (p < 0.001). Furthermore, they more often implemented EBP principles (p < 0.001) and accessed online evidence-based retrieval databases (p < 0.001). The most common motivation for using online databases was self-learning for advanced nurses and positional promotion for beginning nurses. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed advanced nurses were more aware of EBP, had higher knowledge and skills of EBP, and more often implemented EBP than beginning nurses.Linking Evidence to ActionThe awareness of, beliefs in, attitudes toward, knowledge of, skills in, and behaviors of EBP among advanced nurses were better than those among beginning nurses. The data indicate that a clinical ladder system can serve as a useful means to enhance EBP implementation.