Current medical research and opinion
-
The term "mixed pain" is increasingly applied for specific clinical scenarios, such as low back pain, cancer pain and postsurgical pain, in which there "is a complex overlap of the different known pain types (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) in any combination, acting simultaneously and/or concurrently to cause pain in the same body area." Whether mixed pain is the manifestation of neuropathic and nociceptive mechanisms operating simultaneously or concurrently, or the result of an entirely independent pathophysiological mechanism - distinct from nociceptive, nociplastic and neuropathic pain - is currently unknown. At present, the diagnosis of mixed pain is made based on clinical judgement following detailed history-taking and thorough physical examination, rather than by formal confirmation following explicit screening or diagnostic criteria; this lack of formalized screening or diagnostic tools for mixed pain is problematic for physicians in primary care, who encounter patients with probable mixed pain states in their daily practice. ⋯ The authors propose the use of nine simple key questions, which will provide the practicing clinician a framework for identifying the predominant pain mechanisms operating within the patient. A methodical, fairly rapid, and comprehensive assessment of a patient in chronic pain - particularly one suffering from pain with both nociceptive and neuropathic components - allows validation of their experience of chronic pain as a specific disease and, importantly, allows the institution of targeted treatment.
-
To examine opioid prescribing following cataract surgery among patients who did or did not receive Omidria (phenylephrine and ketorolac intraocular solution 1.0%/0.3%) referred to as "P/K". ⋯ Patients without recent opioid use who received P/K during cataract surgery, despite greater incidence of preoperative comorbidities and higher risk for surgical complexity, were prescribed fewer opioid pills following surgery than patients who did not receive P/K.
-
To assess the use of Multivariate Index Assay (MIA OVA1) by gynecologists and determine referral practices and surgical decision making for women with adnexal masses and low-risk MIA OVA1 scores. ⋯ A high proportion of low-risk OVA1 patients were not referred to a gynecologic oncologist prior to surgery, indicating gynecologists may use MIA OVA1 along with clinical and radiographic findings to appropriately retain patients for their care. This practice is safe and may be cost-saving, with patient satisfaction implications.
-
We argue that increased risk for a variety of diseases in ART children has been consistently reaffirmed by different methods and in diverse populations, providing a methodological critique of recent sibling studies, which hold great potential for studying the risks of ART. A recent within-family analysis using a national population register holds a distinct size advantage over previous studies, and suggested that apparent risks to offspring may be attributable to birth order. ⋯ While uncertainty remains, the evidence points to elevated risk for ART offspring. It may therefore be prudent to call for an extension of preventive and precautionary decisions to the entire population, and to change informed consent to incorporate the long-term health consequences of fertility treatments.