{Reference Type}: Meta-Analysis
{Title}: Pain prevalence and characteristics in survivors of solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Haenen V;Evenepoel M;De Baerdemaecker T;Meeus M;Devoogdt N;Morlion B;Dams L;Van Dijck S;Van der Gucht E;De Vrieze T;Vyvere TV;De Groef A;
{Journal}: Support Care Cancer
{Volume}: 31
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: Dec 2022 27
{Factor}: 3.359
{DOI}: 10.1007/s00520-022-07491-8
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The latest systematic review on the prevalence of pain in cancer survivors was published 5 years ago. The current review aims to provide an extended overview on the prevalence of pain, pain mechanisms, pain characteristics, and assessment methods in cancer survivors.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A systematic research was conducted on 17th of April 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane looking at studies from 2014 to 2020. Studies had to report pain prevalence rates in cancer survivors with a solid tumor who finished curative treatment at least 3 months ago. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool. Characteristics of the included studies, participants and reported pain prevalence rates were extracted. The reported prevalence rates of the individual studies were pooled within a meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were performed to identify possible determinants of the pooled pain prevalence.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>After deduplication, 7300 articles were screened, after which 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was rated low in 26 articles and moderate in 12 articles. The pooled pain prevalence was 47% (95%CI 39-55), with a heterogeneity of 98.99%.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>This meta-analysis suggests that nearly half of cancer survivors report pain after completing curative treatment at least 3 months ago. However, substantial unexplained heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of these results. Meta-regression using cancer type, treatment location, pain measurement, and follow-up time as a covariate could not explain influencing factors explaining the high heterogeneity.