RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Digital Application use in Clinical Research in Pain Medicine
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.02.22271773
DO 10.1101/2022.03.02.22271773
A1 Shetty, Ashish
A1 Delanerolle, Gayathri
A1 Zeng, Yutian
A1 Shi, Jian Qing
A1 Ebrahim, Rawan
A1 Pang, Joanna
A1 Hapangama, Dharani
A1 Sillem, Martin
A1 Shetty, Suchith
A1 Shetty, Balakrishnan
A1 Hirsch, Martin
A1 Raymont, Vanessa
A1 Majumder, Kingshuk
A1 Chong, Sam
A1 Goodison, William
A1 O’Hara, Rebecca
A1 Hull, Louise
A1 Pluchino, Nicola
A1 Shetty, Naresh
A1 Elneil, Sohier
A1 Fernandez, Tacson
A1 Phiri, Peter
A1 Brownstone, Robert
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/04/2022.03.02.22271773.abstract
AB Importance Pain is a silent global epidemic impacting approximately a third of the population. Pharmacological and surgical interventions are primary modes of treatment. Cognitive/behavioural management approaches and interventional pain management strategies are approaches that have been used to assist with the management of chronic pain. Accurate data collection and reporting treatment outcomes are vital to addressing the challenges faced. In light of this, we conducted a systematic evaluation of the current digital application landscape within chronic pain medicine.Objective The primary objective was to consider the prevalence of digital application usage for chronic pain management. These digital applications included mobile apps, web apps, and chatbots.Data Sources We conducted searches on PubMed and ScienceDirect for studies that were published between 1st January 1990 and 1st January 2021.Study Selection Our review included studies that involved the use of digital applications for chronic pain conditions. There were no restrictions on the country in which the study was conducted. Only studies that were peer-reviewed and published in English were included. Four reviewers had assessed the eligibility of each study against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Out of the 84 studies that were initially identified, 38 were included in the systematic review.Data Extraction and Synthesis The AMSTAR guidelines were used to assess data quality. This assessment was carried out by 3 reviewers. The data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Before data collection began, the primary outcome was to report on the prevalence of digital application usage for chronic pain conditions. We also recorded the type of digital application studied (e.g. mobile application, web application) and, where the data was available, the prevalence of pain intensity, pain inferences, depression, anxiety, and fatigue.Results 38 studies were included in the systematic review and 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis.The digital interventions were categorised to web and mobile applications and chatbots, with pooled prevalence of 0.22 (95% CI −0.16, 0.60), 0.30 (95% CI 0.00, 0.60) and −0.02 (95% CI −0.47, 0.42) respectively. Pooled standard mean differences for symptomatologies of pain intensity, depression, and anxiety symptoms were 0.25 (95% CI 0.03, 0.46), 0.30 (95% CI 0.17, 0.43) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.05, 0.69) respectively.A sub-group analysis was conducted on pain intensity due to the heterogeneity of the results (I2=82.86%; p=0.02). After stratifying by country, we found that digital applications were more likely to be effective in some countries (e.g. USA, China) than others (e.g. Ireland, Norway).Conclusions and Relevance The use of digital applications in improving pain-related symptoms shows promise, but further clinical studies would be needed to develop more robust applications.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors