-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Dental Anxiety; Dental Care for Children; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Meperidine; Midazolam; Nitrous Oxide; Preanesthetic Medication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30566228
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003877.pub5 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology... Dec 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of camylofin compared with other antispasmodics (drotaverine, hyoscine, valethamate,... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of camylofin compared with other antispasmodics (drotaverine, hyoscine, valethamate, phloroglucinol, and meperidine) in labor augmentation. A systematic literature search until March 27, 2018, was performed, and data on the cervical dilatation rate (CDR) and duration of stages of labor reported in 39 eligible articles were analyzed using a random-effects model. CDR was significantly higher (0.38 cm/h, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.67, = 0.007), and the duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter (- 41.21 minutes, 95% CI, - 77.19 to - 5.22, = 0.02) in women receiving camylofin than those receiving other antispasmodics for labor augmentation. CDR was significantly higher with camylofin compared with valethamate (0.6 cm/h, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9, < 0.0001) and hyoscine (20 mg) (0.5 cm/h, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.8, = 0.02). The duration of the first stage of labor was significantly shorter with camylofin compared with hyoscine (20 mg) (- 59.9 min, 95% CI, - 117.9 to - 1.8, = 0.04). However, CDR and the duration of first stage of labor were not statistically different between camylofin and drotaverine groups. The percentage of women having nausea and vomiting, cervical/vaginal tear, and postpartum hemorrhage were comparable with all antispasmodics, whereas tachycardia was least reported in women receiving camylofin (3, 2.07%) than those receiving other antispasmodics. This meta-analysis demonstrated the benefit of camylofin in labor augmentation with a faster CDR and reduction in the active first stage of labor in Indian women.
PubMed: 33417640
DOI: 10.1007/s13224-020-01343-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Agitation is a common experience for people living with dementia, particularly as day-to-day function and cognition start to decline more. At the present time there are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Agitation is a common experience for people living with dementia, particularly as day-to-day function and cognition start to decline more. At the present time there are limited pharmacological options for relieving agitation and little is known about the safety and efficacy of opioid drugs in this setting.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 13 June 2014 using the terms: narcotic OR opioid OR opium OR morphine OR buprenorphine OR codeine OR dextromoramide OR diphenoxylate OR dipipanone OR dextropropoxyphene OR propoxyphene OR diamorphine OR dihydrocodeine OR alfentanil OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR meptazinol OR methadone OR nalbuphine OR oxycodone OR papaveretum OR pentazocine OR meperidine OR pethidine OR phenazocine OR hydrocodone OR hydromorphone OR levorphanol OR oxymorphone OR butorphanol OR dezocine OR sufentanil OR ketobemidone.ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and PscyINFO, as well as numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, controlled trials of opioids compared to placebo for agitation in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
There are currently no completed randomised, placebo controlled trials of opioids for agitation in dementia. There are two potentially relevant trials still in progress.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to establish the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia. There remains a lack of data to determine if or when opioids either relieve or exacerbate agitation. More evidence is needed to guide the effective, appropriate and safe use of opioids in dementia.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Dementia; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 25972091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009705.pub2 -
Compendium of Continuing Education in... May 2018Ketamine has been used as a safe and effective sedative to treat adults and children exhibiting high levels of anxiety or fear during dental treatment. Pediatric... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ketamine has been used as a safe and effective sedative to treat adults and children exhibiting high levels of anxiety or fear during dental treatment. Pediatric dentistry often involves patients with high levels of anxiety and fear and possibly few positive dental experiences. Patient management can involve behavioral approaches, as well as the use of sedation or general anesthesia with a variety of agents, including midazolam, diazepam, hydroxyzine, meperidine, and ketamine. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of ketamine use in pediatric sedation dentistry through systematic review and analysis.
METHODS
A systematic review of publications between 1990 and 2015 was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE databases maintained by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. The keywords used were (ketamine) AND (dental OR dentistry) AND (sedation). The abstract and title of all potential publications were then screened for clinical trials and to remove non-English articles, non-human or animal trials, and other non-dental or non-relevant studies.
RESULTS
A total of 1,657 citations were initially identified, reviewed, and screened, eventually resulting in inclusion of 25 clinical trials in this systematic review. Nineteen studies evaluated ketamine effects in pediatric dental sedation using oral (non-invasive) administration, three involved subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, and three were completed intravenously. Evidence analysis of these trials revealed the majority (n = 22/25) provided strong, positive evidence for the use of ketamine (alone or in combination) to reduce dental anxiety and behavioral non-compliance with the remainder suggesting equivocal results. Additional endpoints evaluated in some studies involved dosage, as well as time to achieve sedation effect.
CONCLUSION
The use of ketamine (alone or in combination) can provide safe, effective, and timely sedation in pediatric patients regardless of the route of administration.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Child; Dental Anxiety; Fear; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Ketamine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 29714490
DOI: No ID Found -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2022Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions in postoperative CRBD. The present review was performed to assess the efficacy of these interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of different drugs for the prevention of postoperative CRBD. This review evaluated the incidence and severity of CRBD after different interventions at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 31 different drugs were analyzed. Eleven drugs were investigated in more than two RCTs, of which dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and pudendal nerve block (PNB) generally showed significantly higher efficacy than controls postoperatively. Solifenacin only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 0 h, and intravenous lidocaine only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 6 h. There were insufficient trials to draw conclusions regarding atropine, butylscopolamine, chlorpheniramine, clonidine, darifenacin, diphenhydramine, glycopyrrolate, intravesical bupivacaine, ketamine-haloperidol, pethidine-haloperidol, ketorolac, lidocaine-prilocaine cream, magnesium, hyoscine n-butyl bromide, oxycodone, paracetamol, parecoxib, trospium, resiniferatoxin, or amikacin. However, all but pethidine-haloperidol and chlorpheniramine showed some efficacy at various time points compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and PNB are effective in preventing postoperative CRBD. Considering the efficacy and adverse effects of all drugs, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin were ranked best.
Topics: Chlorpheniramine; Dexmedetomidine; Gabapentin; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Nefopam; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Tolterodine Tartrate; Tramadol; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters
PubMed: 35218404
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03251-5 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Feb 2017Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.
METHODS
A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.
RESULTS
Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Hypotension; Hypoxia; Propofol; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27451091
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.013 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Oct 2023Shivering is a common side effect after general anesthesia. Risk factors are hypothermia, young age and postoperative pain. Severe complications of shivering are rare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Shivering is a common side effect after general anesthesia. Risk factors are hypothermia, young age and postoperative pain. Severe complications of shivering are rare but can occur due to increased oxygen consumption. Previous systematic reviews are outdated and have summarized the evidence on the topic using only pairwise comparisons. The objective of this manuscript was a quantitative synthesis of evidence on pharmacological interventions to treat postanesthetic shivering.
EVIDENCE ACQUSITION
Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using the R package netmeta. Endpoints were the risk ratio (RR) of persistent shivering at one, five and 10 minutes after treatment with saline/placebo as the comparator. Data were retrieved from Medline, Embase, Central and Web of Science up to January 2022. Eligibility criteria were: randomized, controlled, and blinded trials comparing pharmacological interventions to treat shivering after general anesthesia. Studies on shivering during or after any type of regional anesthesia were excluded as well as sedated patients after cardiac surgery.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirty-two trials were eligible for data synthesis, including 28 pharmacological interventions. The largest network included 1431 patients. The network geometry was two-centered with most comparisons linked to saline/placebo or pethidine. The best interventions were after one minute: doxapram 2 mg/kg, tramadol 2 mg/kg and nefopam 10 mg, after 5 minutes: tramadol 2 mg/kg, nefopam 10 mg and clonidine 150 µg and after 10 minutes: nefopam 10 mg, methylphenidate 20 mg and tramadol 1 mg/kg, all reaching statistical significance. Pethidine 25 mg and clonidine 75 µg also performed well and with statistical significance in all networks.
CONCLUSIONS
Nefopam, tramadol, pethidine and clonidine are the most effective treatments to stop postanesthetic shivering. The efficacy of doxapram is uncertain since different doses showed contradictory effects and the evidence for methylphenidate is based on a single comparison in only one network. Furthermore, both lack data on side effects. Further studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to treat postanesthetic shivering.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Shivering; Nefopam; Clonidine; Tramadol; Network Meta-Analysis; Doxapram; Meperidine; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 37458681
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.23.17410-4 -
Experimental Biology and Medicine... Nov 2023The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the...
The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the risks presented by opioid exposure, as well as the individual risk profiles of specific opioid drugs and the potential relationships among the opioids. In this study, 92 opioids were identified from the list of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, annotated by RxNorm and were classified into 13 opioid groups: buprenorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, and tramadol. A total of 14,970,399 AE reports were retrieved and downloaded from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004, Quarter 1 to 2020, Quarter 3. After data processing, Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) was then applied which identified 3317 pairs of potential risk signals within the 13 opioid groups. Based on these potential safety signals, a comparative analysis was pursued to provide a global overview of opioid-related AEs for all 13 groups of FDA-approved prescription opioids. The top 10 most reported AEs for each opioid class were then presented. Both network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were conducted to further explore the relationship between opioids. Results from the network analysis revealed a close association among fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone, which shared more than 22 AEs. In addition, much less commonly reported AEs were shared among dihydrocodeine, meperidine, oxymorphone, and tapentadol. On the contrary, the hierarchical clustering analysis further categorized the 13 opioid classes into two groups by comparing the full profiles of presence/absence of AEs. The results of network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were not only consistent and cross-validated each other but also provided a better and deeper understanding of the associations and relationships between the 13 opioid groups with respect to their adverse effect profiles.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Data Mining; Fentanyl; Hydrocodone; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Oxycodone; Oxymorphone; Tapentadol; United States
PubMed: 38158803
DOI: 10.1177/15353702231211860 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2018We performed a systematic review of various anaesthetic medications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and aimed to make a comprehensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
We performed a systematic review of various anaesthetic medications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and aimed to make a comprehensive comparison based on a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched globally recognized electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central and EMBASE, to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anaesthetic medications for ERCP. Network meta-analysis was conducted by evaluating the procedure time, adverse effects and drug requirements. The cumulative probability P value was utilized to rank the medications under examination.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs that examined 1877 patients were included in this research. Under good convergence and efficiency, data analysis was performed using a consistency model. For the comparison of procedure times, we found that a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (P = 0.19) or propofol plus pethidine (P = 0.18) seemed to be the two best medications for reducing procedure time. Additionally, midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine seemed to be the safest application for ERCP (P = 0.36). Propofol plus alfentanil also exhibited a good safety value (P = 0.28). For evaluation of drug requirements, the whole network connection could not be established; thus, comparisons in two subgroups were conducted. The results showed that midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine (P = 0.41) and propofol plus refentanil (P = 0.94) were superior to others in decreasing drug requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the objective results and our conclusions, we deemed that a combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine was recommended, and propofol plus opioids also revealed great clinical value. However, we are still expecting more clinical research in the future.
Topics: Alfentanil; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ketamine; Meperidine; Midazolam; Network Meta-Analysis; Operative Time; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29367034
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.018