Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioid, nonopioid pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic therapy in patients with specific types of acute pain, including effects on pain, function, quality of life, adverse events, and long-term use of opioids. Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to August 2020, reference lists, and a Federal Register notice. Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient therapies for eight acute pain conditions: low back pain, neck pain, other musculoskeletal pain, neuropathic pain, postoperative pain following discharge, dental pain (surgical or nonsurgical), pain due to kidney stones, and pain due to sickle cell disease. Meta-analyses were conducted on pharmacologic therapy for dental pain and kidney stone pain, and likelihood of repeat or rescue medication use and adverse events. The magnitude of effects was classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed. Results. One hundred eighty-three RCTs on the comparative effectiveness of therapies for acute pain were included. Opioid therapy was probably less effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for surgical dental pain and kidney stones, and might be similarly effective as NSAIDs for low back pain. Opioids and NSAIDs were more effective than acetaminophen for surgical dental pain, but opioids were less effective than acetaminophen for kidney stone pain. For postoperative pain, opioids were associated with increased likelihood of repeat or rescue analgesic use, but effects on pain intensity were inconsistent. Being prescribed an opioid for acute low back pain or postoperative pain was associated with increased likelihood of use of opioids at long-term followup versus not being prescribed, based on observational studies. Heat therapy was probably effective for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation might be effective for acute back pain with radiculopathy, acupressure might be effective for acute musculoskeletal pain, an opioid might be effective for acute neuropathic pain, massage might be effective for some types of postoperative pain, and a cervical collar or exercise might be effective for acute neck pain with radiculopathy. Most studies had methodological limitations. Effect sizes were primarily small to moderate for pain, the most commonly evaluated outcome. Opioids were associated with increased risk of short-term adverse events versus NSAIDs or acetaminophen, including any adverse event, nausea, dizziness, and somnolence. Serious adverse events were uncommon for all interventions, but studies were not designed to assess risk of overdose, opioid use disorder, or long-term harms. Evidence on how benefits or harms varied in subgroups was lacking. Conclusions. Opioid therapy was associated with decreased or similar effectiveness as an NSAID for some acute pain conditions, but with increased risk of short-term adverse events. Evidence on nonpharmacological therapies was limited, but heat therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, acupuncture, acupressure, a cervical collar, and exercise were effective for specific acute pain conditions. Research is needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of therapies for sickle cell pain, acute neuropathic pain, neck pain, and management of postoperative pain following discharge; effects of therapies for acute pain on non-pain outcomes; effects of therapies on long-term outcomes, including long-term opioid use; and how benefits and harms of therapies vary in subgroups.

Objective: The objective was to systematically identify and summarize out-of-hospital measures of circulatory compromise as diagnostic predictors of serious injury, focusing on measures usable by emergency medical services to inform field triage decisions. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases from 1996 through August 2017 for published literature on individual circulatory measures in trauma. We reviewed reference lists of included articles for additional relevant citations. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Indicators of serious injury included resource need, serious anatomic injury, and mortality. We pooled estimates when data permitted. Results: We identified 114 articles, reporting results of 111 studies. Measures included systolic blood pressure (sBP), heart rate (HR), shock index (SI), lactate, base deficit, and HR variability. Pooled out-of-hospital sensitivity estimates were sBP < 90 mm Hg = 19% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12% to 29%), HR ≥ 110 beats/ min = 28% (95% CI = 20% to 37%), SI > 0.9 = 37% (95% CI = 22% to 56%), and lactate > 2.0 mmol/L = 74% (95% CI = 48% to 90%). Pooled specificity estimates were sBP < 90 mm Hg = 95% (95% CI = 91% to 97%), HR ≥ 110 beats/min = 85% (95% CI = 74% to 91%), SI > 0.9 = 85% (95% CI = 72% to 92%), and lactate > 2.0 mmol/L = 62% (95% CI = 51% to 72%). Pooled AUROCs included sBP = 0.67 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.75), HR = 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.79), SI = 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66 to 0.77), and lactate = 0.77 (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.82). Strength of evidence was low to moderate. Conclusions: Out-of-hospital circulatory measures are associated with poor to fair discrimination for identifying trauma patients with serious injuries. Many seriously injured patients have normal circulatory measures (low sensitivity), but when present, the measures are highly specific for identifying patients with serious injuries.

Objectives: The objective was to systematically review the published literature on the diagnostic accuracy of out-of-hospital respiratory measures for identifying patients with serious injury, focusing on measures feasible for field triage by emergency medical services personnel.

The purpose of this project was to identify and abstract data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) interventions to support the development of a publicly accessible data repository by the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Key Messages • We abstracted data from 318 RCTs, including psychotherapeutic interventions (55%), pharmacologic interventions (30%), and complementary and integrative or nonpharmacologic biological treatments (15%). • Studies included community (57%) and military/veteran (43%) populations. • Less than half of the studies reported on the loss of PTSD diagnosis or clinically meaningful response/remission of symptoms. Reporting was incomplete for many data elements. • Information on gaps in the evidence may inform future research.

Objectives. Identify and abstract data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and comorbid PTSD/substance use disorder to update the previous Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report and National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD) PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository (PTSD-Repository). Data sources. We searched PTSDpubs, Ovid® MEDLINE®, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO®, Embase®, CINAHL®, and Scopus® for eligible RCTs published from June 1, 2018, to January 26, 2022. Review methods. In consultation with AHRQ and NCPTSD, we updated the evidence tables for the PTSD-Repository by including evidence published after publication of the last update and expanding abstraction of results to include calculated standardized effect sizes. The primary publication for each RCT was abstracted; data and citations from secondary publications (i.e., companion papers) appear in the same record. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) for all newly included studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials. For studies already in the PTSD-Repository, we will add calculated standardized effect sizes and update RoB using the new RoB 2 tool over the next several annual updates. Results. We added 48 new RCTs examining treatments for PTSD, for a total of 437 included studies published from 1988 to July 30, 2021. Among the 48 newly added RCTs, psychotherapy interventions were the most commonly employed (50%), followed by complementary and integrative health (17%). Approximately half of studies were conducted in the United States (46%), and enrolled community participants (52%) and participants with a mix of trauma types (48%). Studies typically had sample sizes ranging from 25 to 99 participants (69%). RoB was rated as high for 52 percent of studies, 31 percent were rated as low RoB, and the remaining studies were rated as having some concerns (15%). Conclusions. This report updates the previous AHRQ report to include 48 recently published RCTs, for a total of 437 studies. This update adds comprehensive data, standardized effect sizes for PTSD outcomes, and RoB assessment for the newly included RCTs. As with the previous AHRQ update, this report will inform updates to the PTSD-Repository, a comprehensive database of PTSD trials.