Search

Nociception related salivary biomolecules can be useful patients who are not able to self-report pain. We present the existing evidence on this topic using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and a more focused analysis of cortisol change after cold pain induction using the direction of effect analysis combined with risk of bias analysis using ROBINS-I. Five data bases were searched systematically for articles on adults with acute pain secondary to disease, injury, or experimentally induced pain. Forty three articles met the inclusion criteria for the general review and 11 of these were included in the cortisol-cold pain analysis. Salivary melatonin, kallikreins, pro-inflammatory cytokines, soluable TNF-α receptor II, secretory IgA, testosterone, salivary α-amylase (sAA) and, most commonly, cortisol have been studied in relation to acute pain. There is greatest information about cortisol and sAA which both rise after cold pain when compared with other modalities. Where participants have been subjected to both pain and stress, stress is consistently a more reliable predictor of salivary biomarker change than pain. There remain considerable challenges in identifying biomarkers that can be used in clinical practice to guide the measurement of nociception and treatment of pain. Standardization of methodology and researchers' greater awareness of the factors that affect salivary biomolecule concentrations are needed to improve our understanding of this field towards creating a clinically relevant body of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the delivery of face-to-face pain services including pain management programmes in the United Kingdom with considerable negative impact on patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We aimed to develop and implement a remotely delivered pain management programme (PMP) using video-conferencing technology that contains all the core components of a full programme: the 'virtual PMP' (vPMP). By reporting on the process of this development, we endeavour to help address the paucity of literature on the development of remote pain management programmes. Methods: The vPMP was developed by an inter-disciplinary group of professionals as a quality improvement (QI) project. The Model for Improvement Framework was employed with patient involvement at the design phase and at subsequent improvements. Improvement was measured qualitatively with frequent and repeated qualitative data collection leading to programme change. Quantitative patient demographic comparisons were made with a patient cohort who had been on a face-to-face PMP pathway. Results: Sixty-one patients on the PMP waiting list were contacted and 43 met the criteria for the programme. Fourteen patients participated in three vPMP cycles. Patient involvement and comprehensive stakeholder consultation were essential to a robust design for the first vPMP. Continued involvement of patient partners during the QI process led to rapid resolution of implementation problems. The most prominent issues that needed action were technical challenges including training needs, participant access to physical and technological resources, participant fatigue and concerns about adequate communication and peer support. Conclusion: This report demonstrates how a remotely delivered PMP, fully in line with national guidance, was rapidly developed and implemented in a hospital setting for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We also discuss the relevance of our findings to the issues of cost, patient experience, patient preferences and inequities of access in delivering telerehabilitation for chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.