Editor’s Note

Dr Lincoln Tracy

After a brief break to recover from the amazing Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) in Canberra earlier this year, the eNewsletter is back! This month’s edition is packed to the brim with lots of great content, including a report from our new President Joyce McSwan, about her recent trip to Bangkok for the Association of Southeast Asian Pain Societies Congress (ASEAPS).

I am very pleased that the eNewsletter will again feature reflections from our ASM travel grant recipients about their experiences, with the first cabs off the rank included in this edition. Like last year, the submissions we have received to date are of an exceptional quality. Keep an eye out for more reports as we move into the second half of the year!

On a more serious note, I have seen two instances over the last few months where Cochrane reviews have attracted some “interesting” responses.

The first review, which was published in January, assessed the effectiveness of physical interventions to reduce the spread of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. This review attracted a lot of attention, especially online, as the results suggested that “wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks.” I’ll let the experts talk about what the review found and why you should still wear a mask despite its findings.

The second review, published in March, assessed the benefits and harms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for people with chronic low back pain. This review was authored by individuals who are well-known to the society. In brief, the review found the data they examined “do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial” and that the procedure “probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.”

The spinal cord stimulation review attracted a response from a reader that challenged the approach and findings of the review, and the authors of the original review have now had the opportunity to respond

The conversation surrounding these reviews, including a recent opinion piece questioning whether we should trust Cochrane reviews, has taught and/or reminded me of a few things:

1. Anyone can post a comment in response to a Cochrane review. They even have a prize for the best response that critically appraises reviews published by Cochrane.

2. We should encourage public discussion regarding accepted or published papers on a more regular basis.

3. The importance of keeping discussions where you may disagree with someone or something civil, even if you aren’t standing directly in front of them and saying it to their face.

Take care, Lincoln