Efficacy of Inhaled Cannabis on Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Wallace, Mark; Marcotte, Thomas D.; Umlauf, Anya; Gouaux, Ben; Atkinson, J. Hampton

doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.03.008

Cited by 186 publications

(207 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

196

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 6 of the 7 cases, at least 1 record met the inclusion criteria of the systematic review [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Reviewer screening time took on average between 30 and 40 minutes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Duffy

Kock

Misso

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review.Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid).Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review.Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews. When conducting comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews of health care interventions, searchers almost always include one bibliographic database, MEDLINE. MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books. Despite this and the fact that PubMed is freely available, many information specialists prefer to search using sophisticated interfaces (usually fee-based) that enable the design of complex search strategies.PubMed has relatively limited search capabilities. For example, proximity searching is not possible and truncation is limited to the first 600 variations. The lack of proximity search operators can be a significant hindrance when attempting to conduct searches for systematic reviews in PubMed, as phrase searching or use of the Boolean ''AND'' to combine terms are the only alternatives. This can produce a search strategy that is either too precise when using phrases or too sensitive when using the Boolean ''AND.'' Searching MEDLINE via more sophisticated interfaces enables much greater flexibility when conducting searches for systematic reviews, allowing information specialists to find a better balance between precision and sensitivity that is not possible in PubMed.Migration of records from PubMed into fee-based subscription services is usually quite timely. Studies indicate that indexed MEDLINE records and

show abstract

“…In 6 of the 7 cases, at least 1 record met the inclusion criteria of the systematic review [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Reviewer screening time took on average between 30 and 40 minutes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Duffy

Kock

Misso

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pain reduction occurs within 1 week 231 . Inhaled cannabis reduced spontaneous pain associated PDN for a short duration in a dose-dependent fashion but had significant negative cognitive effects 232 . Nabilone was significantly better than placebo at reducing pain intensity and improving sleep quality 233 .…”

Section: Findings From Studies Grouped By Chronic Pain Syndromementioning

confidence: 98%

Alternatives to Opioids in the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Randomized, Controlled, and Blinded Clinical Trials

Nicol

Hurley

Benzon

2017

Anesthesia &Amp; Analgesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers employ non-opioid medications to treat chronic pain, however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for non-malignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of non-opioid analgesics for the most common non-cancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many non-opioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking and the effect sizes noted in many studies is not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanisms-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

show abstract

“…Several trials reported significant improvements in sleep, and there were no serious adverse events reported. 3 Since 2010, eight new studies have been published [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] ( Table 3). Seven of them were performed on patients with neuropathic pain and one on patients with chronic headache.…”

Section: Update On Clinical Studies On Cannabis and Painmentioning

confidence: 99%