In September 2006, members of the Sex, Gender and Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain met to discuss the following: (1) what is known about sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia; (2) what are the "best practice" guidelines for pain research with respect to sex and gender; and (3) what are the crucial questions to address in the near future? The resulting consensus presented herein includes input from basic science, clinical and psychosocial pain researchers, as well as from recognized experts in sexual differentiation and reproductive endocrinology. We intend this document to serve as a utilitarian and thought-provoking guide for future research on sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia, both for those currently working in this field as well as those still wondering, "Do I really need to study females?" Keywords Sex differences; Gonadal hormones; Estrogens The case for studying sex and gender differences in pain and analgesiaThe pain field has moved from debating whether sex differences in pain exist to recognizing the importance of these differences. Attention is now directed toward understanding (1) what conditions lead to the expression of sex and gender differences in pain experience and reactivity, (2) what mechanisms underlie these differences, and (3) how these differences can inform clinical management of pain.As noted in a recent review, at least 79% of animal studies published in Pain over the preceding 10 years included male subjects only, with a mere 8% of studies on females only, and another 4% explicitly designed to test for sex differences (the rest did not specify) [142]. Given the substantially greater prevalence of many clinical pain conditions in women vs. men [20,199], and growing evidence for sex differences in sensitivity to experimental pain and to analgesics [21,41,213], we recommend that all pain researchers consider testing their hypotheses in both sexes, or if restricted by practical considerations, only in females. It is invalid to assume that data obtained in male subjects will generalize to females, and the best non-human model of the modal human pain sufferer -a woman -is a female animal. If only males are examined in a given study, it is important that a rationale for exclusion of females be provided and that the potential limitation in generalizability of the findings be addressed in the discussion, particularly when examining a pain phenomenon that occurs with greater prevalence or severity in females. In both preclinical and clinical studies, a comparison of both sexes will further our understanding of individual differences in sensitivity to pain and analgesia, thus improving our ability to treat and prevent pain in all people. General considerationsTwo issues of terminology are important. First, the term "sex" refers to biologically based differences, while the term "gender" refers to socially based phenomena. Although biological sex exerts a major influence on one's gender identity, sex and gender a...

A new classification for caesarean section was developed in a two-part study conducted at six hospitals. Initially, 90 anaesthetists and obstetricians graded ten clinical scenarios according to five different classification methods--visual analogue scale; suitable anaesthetic technique; maximum time to delivery; clinical definitions; and a 1-5 rating scale. Clinical definitions was the most consistent and useful, and this method was then applied prospectively to 407 caesarean sections at the same six hospitals. There was close agreement (86%) between anaesthetists and obstetricians for the five-point scale (weighted kappa 0.89), increasing to 90% if two categories were combined (weighted kappa 0.91). We suggest that the resultant four-grade classification system--(i) immediate threat to life of woman or fetus; (ii) maternal or fetal compromise which is not immediately life-threatening; (iii) needing early delivery but no maternal or fetal compromise; (iv) at a time to suit the patient and maternity team--should be adopted by multidisciplinary groups with an interest in maternity data collection.

Despite the major benefits of antiretroviral therapy on survival during HIV infection, there is an increasing need to manage symptoms and side effects during long-term drug therapy. Cannabis has been reported anecdotally as being beneficial for a number of common symptoms and complications in HIV infections, for example, poor appetite and neuropathy. This study aimed to investigate symptom management with cannabis. Following Ethics Committee approval, HIV-positive individuals attending a large clinic were recruited into an anonymous cross-sectional questionnaire study. Up to one-third (27%, 143/523) reported using cannabis for treating symptoms. Patients reported improved appetite (97%), muscle pain (94%), nausea (93%), anxiety (93%), nerve pain (90%), depression (86%), and paresthesia (85%). Many cannabis users (47%) reported associated memory deterioration. Symptom control using cannabis is widespread in HIV outpatients. A large number of patients reported that cannabis improved symptom control.