Objective To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. Study selection Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. Data extraction and synthesis Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Results A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.50 cm (95% CI −0.75 to −0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of −0.35 cm (−0.55 to −0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). Conclusions Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. Systematic review registration https://osf.io/3pwn2

Background: The prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) after breast cancer surgery are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to further elucidate this issue. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2018, for observational studies reporting persistent pain (3 months) after breast cancer surgery. We used random-effects meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to rate quality of evidence. Results: We included 187 observational studies with 297 612 breast cancer patients. The prevalence of PPSP ranged from 2% to 78%, median 37% (inter-quartile range: 22e48%); the pooled prevalence was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32e39%). The pooled pain intensity was 3.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI: 3.6e4.2 cm). Moderate-quality evidence supported the subgroup effects of PPSP prevalence for localized pain vs any pain (29% vs 44%), moderate or greater vs any pain (26% vs 44%), clinician-assessed vs patient-reported pain (23% vs 36%), and whether patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy vs axillary lymph node dissection (26% vs 43%). The adjusted analysis found that the prevalence of patient-reported PPSP (any severity/location) was 46% (95% CI: 36e56%), and the prevalence of patientreported moderate-to-severe PPSP at any location was 27% (95% CI: 10e43%).

IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018094412.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Canadian rheumatologists largely do not provide primary care for fibromyalgia. Most adhere to guideline recommendations for management of fibromyalgia, but few endorse these interventions as effective. Further research, including updating of the 2012 Canadian Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia, is required to inform this disconnect.

No abstract