Search

Clinical questionWhat is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?Current practiceChronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.RecommendationThe guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.How this guideline was createdAn international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.The evidenceThis recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.Understanding the recommendationThe recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Objective To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. Design Instrument development and reliability study. Data sources Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. Participants With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. Main outcome measures Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. Results The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Clinical questionDo adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery.Current practiceSAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations.RecommendationThe guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation.The evidenceSurgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery.Understanding the recommendationThe panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.

Do corticosteroids reduce death or improve recovery in people with sepsis or septic shock? Our panel make a weak recommendation to give corticosteroids to people with all types and severity of sepsis, based on new evidence. Because we are not certain that they are beneficial, it is also reasonable not to prescribe them. Patients’ values and preferences may guide this decision-making process. This rapid recommendation was triggered by two trials, with differing conclusions whose results might change practice: • ADRENAL (3658 patients who had septic shock) found no statistically significant difference in 90 day mortality between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups.1 • APROCCHSS (1241 patients who had septic shock) found that hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone reduced 90 day mortality.2 The trials are incorporated into a linked systematic review comparing corticosteroids with placebo.3 This BMJ Rapid Recommendation promptly and transparently translates this evidence using GRADE methodology for trustworthy guidelines. Sepsis is a life threatening organ dysfunction from infection. C urrently most guidelines advise against WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW • Sepsis is a syndrome of life threatening infection with organ dysfunction, and most guidelines do not advise use of corticosteroids to treat it in the absence of refractory shock • Two new trials of corticosteroid treatment for sepsis came to differing conclusions • Corticosteroids may reduce the risk of death by a small amount and increase neuromuscular weakness by a small amount, but the evidence is not definitive • This guideline makes a weak recommendation for corticosteroids in patients with sepsis; both steroids and no steroids are reasonable management options • Fully informed patients who value avoiding death over quality of life and function would likely choose corticosteroids No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions giving corticosteroids in sepsis in the absence of refractory shock, but these guidelines have not taken into account the new evidence. We do not anticipate that new clinical trials will substantively alter the evidence suggesting a small but uncertain mortality reduction. The box below shows publications linked in this Rapid Recommendation package. The main infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms. The table at the end of the article shows any evidence that has emerged since the publication of this guideline. This guideline was not funded.

Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction PConclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965

What you need to know #### Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendations cluster Does low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) accelerate recovery in adults and children who have experienced bone fractures or osteotomy (cutting of a bone)? An expert panel rapidly produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review triggered by a large multicentre randomised trial in adults with tibial fracture. Fracture is common (see box 1). Bones can also be broken for medical reasons; osteotomy is a procedure whereby a bone is cut to shorten, lengthen, or to change its alignment. Following osteotomy, the bone has similar healing problems as traumatic fractures, and may require more extensive recovery.1 #### Box 1: Background information ##### Bone fracture ##### LIPUS