Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Conghui Li, Weiqian Hou, Dongfang Ding, Yujie Yang, Shanshan Gu, Yi Zhu
{"title":"Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.","authors":"Conghui Li,&nbsp;Weiqian Hou,&nbsp;Dongfang Ding,&nbsp;Yujie Yang,&nbsp;Shanshan Gu,&nbsp;Yi Zhu","doi":"10.1155/2023/2680620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This evidence mapping is aimed at identifying, summarizing, and analyzing the available evidence on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for neuropathic pain (NP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted following the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analysis published before February 15, 2022. The authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR-2. The results were presented in the tables and a bubble plot based on the identified population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 34 SRs met the eligibility criteria. According to the AMSTAR-2, 2 SRs were rated \"high,\" 2 SRs were rated \"moderate,\" 6 SRs were rated \"low,\" and 24 SRs were rated \"critically low.\" The most common study design utilized to evaluate the efficacy of CBT for NP was the randomized controlled trial. In total, 24 PICOs were identified. Migraine was the most studied population. CBT for NP usually reaches the \"potentially better\" result at follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence mapping is a useful way to present existing evidence. Currently, the existing evidence on CBT for NP is limited. Overall, the methodological quality of the included SRs was low. Further improvements in the methodological quality of SRs and more research on the most efficient CBT formats for NP are recommended in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":51299,"journal":{"name":"Neural Plasticity","volume":"2023 ","pages":"2680620"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neural Plasticity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2680620","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This evidence mapping is aimed at identifying, summarizing, and analyzing the available evidence on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for neuropathic pain (NP).

Methods: This study was conducted following the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analysis published before February 15, 2022. The authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR-2. The results were presented in the tables and a bubble plot based on the identified population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) questions.

Results: A total of 34 SRs met the eligibility criteria. According to the AMSTAR-2, 2 SRs were rated "high," 2 SRs were rated "moderate," 6 SRs were rated "low," and 24 SRs were rated "critically low." The most common study design utilized to evaluate the efficacy of CBT for NP was the randomized controlled trial. In total, 24 PICOs were identified. Migraine was the most studied population. CBT for NP usually reaches the "potentially better" result at follow-up.

Conclusions: Evidence mapping is a useful way to present existing evidence. Currently, the existing evidence on CBT for NP is limited. Overall, the methodological quality of the included SRs was low. Further improvements in the methodological quality of SRs and more research on the most efficient CBT formats for NP are recommended in the future.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于认知行为治疗神经性疼痛系统综述的证据图谱。
目的:本证据图谱旨在识别、总结和分析认知行为疗法(CBT)治疗神经性疼痛(NP)的现有证据。方法:本研究采用全球证据图谱(GEM)方法。在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和PsycINFO中进行检索,以确定在2022年2月15日之前发表的有或没有荟萃分析的系统评价(SRs)。作者独立评估入选资格,提取数据,并使用AMSTAR-2评估纳入的SRs的方法学质量。结果显示在表格和气泡图中,气泡图基于确定的人群-干预-比较-结果(PICO)问题。结果:34例SRs符合入选标准。根据AMSTAR-2, 2个SRs被评为“高”,2个SRs被评为“中等”,6个SRs被评为“低”,24个SRs被评为“极低”。评价CBT治疗NP疗效最常用的研究设计是随机对照试验。共鉴定出24个pico。偏头痛是研究最多的人群。CBT治疗NP通常在随访中达到“潜在更好”的结果。结论:证据制图是展示现有证据的有效方法。目前,CBT治疗NP的证据有限。总体而言,纳入的SRs的方法学质量较低。建议在未来进一步改进SRs的方法质量,并对NP最有效的CBT格式进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neural Plasticity
Neural Plasticity NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Neural Plasticity is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of articles related to all aspects of neural plasticity, with special emphasis on its functional significance as reflected in behavior and in psychopathology. Neural Plasticity publishes research and review articles from the entire range of relevant disciplines, including basic neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, biological psychology, and biological psychiatry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信