-
The Journal of Pain Nov 2023Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TBUP compared to other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A systematic search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until December 26, 2022. The search included randomized controlled trials comparing TBUP versus other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A certainty assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. The protocol for this review was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022318601). In total, 15 studies involving 1,205 participants were included that compared TBUP versus fentanyl (n = 2), celecoxib (n = 3), placebo (n = 2), tramadol (n = 5), diclofenac (n = 3), parecoxib (n = 1), and flurbiprofen (n = 1). Meta-analyses were conducted for 3 comparators that involved 2 studies each. There was no significant difference in pain between TBUP 10 mcg/h versus fentanyl 25 mcg/h (standardized mean difference [SMD] -.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -.86 to .81, P = .95, I = 85%). TBUP 10 mcg/h was associated with less pain compared to celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (SMD -.32, 95% CI -.58 to -.05, P = .02, I = 0%) and placebo (SMD -2.29, 95% CI -4.32 to -.27, P = .03, I = 94%). The GRADE assessment showed a very low certainty of evidence for all comparisons. There is insufficient evidence that TBUP improves pain control compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative pain. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of TBUP to other analgesics for postoperative pain. The results showed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of TBUP in this setting. The findings will help clinicians select the most appropriate opioid regimens for postoperative pain.
Topics: Humans; Celecoxib; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Fentanyl; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37442403
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.001 -
Diclofenac Versus Dexamethasone Following Strabismus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and... 2021To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone poststrabismus surgery were included. An extraction spreadsheet for data collection and Review Manager 5.3 were used for data analysis based on the fixed and random effects models. Discomfort, inflammation, chemosis, conjunctival gap, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included conjunctival congestion and injection, discharge, and drop intolerance. Fixed and random effects models were used for the analysis. Five RCTs enrolling 248 subjects were enrolled. At week 2 postoperatively, there was a significant difference favoring diclofenac over dexamethasone in terms of discomfort (mean difference [MD] = -0.37, = 0.02), conjunctival inflammation (MD = -0.16, = 0.02), conjunctival chemosis (MD = -0.16, = 0.04), and postoperative conjunctival gap (MD = -0.17, = 0.002). In terms of IOP, there were no significant differences. However, no statistically significant differences were noted at weeks 1 and 4 postoperatively. For secondary outcomes, dexamethasone had significantly improved conjunctival congestion; however, diclofenac had significantly less injection at the site of muscle attachments at week 2. No significant difference was noted in terms of discharge and drop intolerance. Diclofenac is comparable to dexamethasone when used following strabismus surgery. However, a significant difference favoring diclofenac in terms of discomfort, inflammation, conjunctival chemosis, and conjunctival gap was only noted at 2 weeks postoperatively. The authors suggest conducting further studies to support the effectiveness of diclofenac as an alternative to corticosteroids following strabismus surgery.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Strabismus
PubMed: 33944620
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2020.0133 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2023Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as diclofenac, can be used to treat pain and reduce inflammation. There is uncertainty regarding diclofenac's benefits and harms compared to placebo or other drugs for postoperative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of diclofenac (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo, other active comparators, or diclofenac administered by different routes (e.g. oral, rectal, etc.) or strategies (e.g. 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled').
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and trial registries on 11 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under 18 years of age undergoing surgery that compared diclofenac (delivered in any dose and route) to placebo or any active pharmacological intervention. We included RCTs comparing different administration routes of diclofenac and different strategies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: pain relief (PR) reported by the child, defined as the proportion of children reporting 50% or better postoperative pain relief; pain intensity (PI) reported by the child; adverse events (AEs); and serious adverse events (SAEs). We presented results using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 RCTs with 2250 children. All surgeries were done using general anaesthesia. Most studies (27) included children above age three. Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias; 30 had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. Diclofenac versus placebo (three studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus placebo on nausea/vomiting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80; 2 studies, 100 children) and any reported bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 26.45; 2 studies, 100 children), both very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus opioids (seven studies) We are very uncertain if diclofenac reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively compared to opioids (median pain intensity 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 2.5) for diclofenac versus median 0.7 (IQR 0.1 to 2.4) in the opioid group; 1 study, 50 children; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on PR or PI for other time points. Diclofenac probably results in less nausea/vomiting compared to opioids (41.0% in opioids, 31.0% in diclofenac; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96; 7 studies, 463 participants), and probably increases any reported bleeding (5.4% in opioids, 16.5% in diclofenac; RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.13; 2 studies, 222 participants), both moderate-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus paracetamol (10 studies) None of the included studies assessed child-reported PR. Compared to paracetamol, we are very uncertain if diclofenac: reduces PI at 0 to 2 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.15; 2 studies, 180 children); reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.39; 3 studies, 300 children); reduces nausea/vomiting (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; 5 studies, 348 children); reduces bleeding events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.62; 5 studies, 332 participants); or reduces SAEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22; 1 study, 60 children). The evidence certainty was very low for all outcomes. Diclofenac versus bupivacaine (five studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. Compared to bupivacaine, we are very uncertain about the effect of diclofenac on nausea/vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78; 3 studies, 128 children) and SAEs (RR 4.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 88.38; 1 study, 38 children), both very low-certainty evidence. Diclofenac versus active pharmacological comparator (10 studies) We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus any other active pharmacological comparator (dexamethasone, pranoprofen, fluorometholone, oxybuprocaine, flurbiprofen, lignocaine), and for different routes and delivery of diclofenac, due to few and small studies, no reporting of key outcomes, and very low-certainty evidence for the reported outcomes. We are unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We remain uncertain about the efficacy of diclofenac compared to placebo, active comparators, or by different routes of administration, for postoperative pain management in children. This is largely due to authors not reporting on clinically important outcomes; unclear reporting of the trials; or poor trial conduct reducing our confidence in the results. We remain uncertain about diclofenac's safety compared to placebo or active comparators, except for the comparison of diclofenac with opioids: diclofenac probably results in less nausea and vomiting compared with opioids, but more bleeding events. For healthcare providers managing postoperative pain, diclofenac is a COX inhibitor option, along with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Healthcare providers should weigh the benefits and risks based on what is known of their respective pharmacological effects, rather than known efficacy. For surgical interventions in which bleeding or nausea and vomiting are a concern postoperatively, the risks of adverse events using opioids or diclofenac for managing pain should be considered.
Topics: Humans; Child; Adolescent; Diclofenac; Acetaminophen; Pain, Postoperative; Nausea; Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid; Bupivacaine
PubMed: 38078559
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015087.pub2 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2023Seborrheic keratoses (SKs) are benign epidermal neoplasms presenting as waxy, brown to black papules and plaques. Patients often seek removal for cosmetic reasons or...
Seborrheic keratoses (SKs) are benign epidermal neoplasms presenting as waxy, brown to black papules and plaques. Patients often seek removal for cosmetic reasons or irritation. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for SKs. Studies involving any topical medication indicated for SK removal were retrieved from Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane. The final search was conducted on November 9, 2021, and 26 reports met inclusion criteria. A quality rating scheme was utilized to assess evidence quality. Heterogeneity of treatments and outcome measures precluded meta-analysis. Topical treatments that yielded a good-to-excellent response include hydrogen peroxide, Maxacalcitol 25 µg/g, BID Tazarotene 0.1% cream, 5% potassium dobesilate cream, 1% diclofenac sodium solution, urea-based solution, and 65% and 80% trichloroacetic acid. Local skin reactions were often mild and transient. Topical hydrogen peroxide showed the greatest evidence for clinical clearance of SKs, although there are no studies to our knowledge that directly compared hydrogen peroxide to current first-line treatments (e.g. cryotherapy or shave excision). The results of this review suggest viable and safe treatment of SK with topical therapies; however, there remains demand for topical treatments that reliably equate or exceed the efficacy of current first-line therapies.Key Points Are safe and efficacious topical treatments for seborrheic keratoses available? Topical treatments for seborrheic keratoses yield different responses and may be associated with local skin reactions. Topical hydrogen peroxide shows the greatest evidence for clinical clearance of seborrheic keratoses and may be a viable option for patients requesting noninvasive removal. No studies to our knowledge directly compare hydrogen peroxide to current first-line treatments. There remains demand for topical treatments that reliably equate or exceed the efficacy of current first-line therapies.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Topical; Cryotherapy; Hydrogen Peroxide; Keratosis, Seborrheic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36215682
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2133532 -
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Nov 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesize that topical NSAIDs will be safe and effective for relieving symptoms in patients with knee OA.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Randomized control trials that investigated topical NSAIDs that are widely available in many countries against both placebo and active controls in primary knee osteoarthritis were included. Studies that investigated other treatment modalities or treated nonspecific OA were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed to quantify the effect sizes and heterogeneity of the NSAIDs used.
RESULTS
Upon initial search, 259 records were identified with 18 studies remaining after duplicate removal, abstract, and full-text screening. All NSAIDs demonstrated statistically significant reduction in at least one parameter of OA symptoms. The majority of included studies (66.7%) evaluated diclofenac. In the meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMD) of topical NSAIDs versus placebo were calculated and interpreted as having moderate effect size for improvement in pain (0.365, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.240, 0.490) and physical function (0.354, 95% CI 0.268, 0.493). With regard to safety, studies that used patches or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the carrier reported a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) than other carriers. Skin AEs were higher in the treatment group than the placebo group and gastrointestinal AEs were lower in the treatment group than placebo.
CONCLUSION
Topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are the most rigorously studied topical NSAIDs in the treatment of knee OA and have demonstrated the most significant reduction in pain and improvement of function. Ibuprofen was effective for pain relief and physical function improvement, but more high-powered studies are needed to make a confident comparison of efficacy. Additionally, the 'carrier' used to deliver the topical NSAID has an impact on the adverse event profile. This has safety implications for prescribers and pharmaceutical development. Topical diclofenac is widely available internationally and is the only topical NSAID approved for over-the-counter use in the US. It should be recommended to patients as a first-line conservative management for OA of the knee.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain
PubMed: 33554694
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1886573 -
Systematic review of topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain.Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2020The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard...
The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard Cochrane methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Studies; date of the final search was November 2018. Included studies were randomized, double blinded, with ten or more participants per treatment arm. The primary outcome of "clinical success" was defined as participant-reported reduction in pain of at least 50%. Details of adverse events (AEs) were recorded. For acute pain, 23 studies (5170 participants) were included. Compared to placebo, number needed to treat (NNT) for different formulations were as follows: diclofenac plaster, 4.7 (95% CI 3.7-6.5); diclofenac plaster with heparin, 7.4 (95% CI 4.6-19); and diclofenac Emulgel, 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.1). 4.1% (78/1919) reported a local AE. For chronic pain, 21 studies (26 publications) with 5995 participants were included. Formulations included gel, solution with or without DMSO, emulsion and plaster. A clinical success rate of ∼60% (NNT 9.5 [95% CI 7-14.7]) was achieved with a variety of formulations. Local AEs (∼14%) were similar for both diclofenac and placebo. This systematic review of 11,000+ participants demonstrates that topical diclofenac is effective for acute pain, such as sprains, with minimal AEs. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac was also demonstrated in chronic musculoskeletal pain but with a higher NNT (worse) compared with acute pain. Formulation does play a part in effectiveness but needs further studies.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31944135
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1716703 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2022Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and explore the discrepancies of PEP incidences among different subgroups.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported rectal administration of 100 mg or higher doses of diclofenac or indomethacin, with PEP as the primary outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The overall and severity of PEP were estimated. Subgroup analysis was performed based on geographic regions, risk level, study beginning time, type of NSAIDs, administration time, and sample size.
RESULTS
There were 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7954 patients in 31 NSAIDs arms. The pooled incidences were 7.2% for overall PEP (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.5%), 5.0% for mild PEP (95% CI, 4.0-6.0%), and 1.5% for moderate and severe PEP (0.8-2.3%). PEP rate were higher in patients receiving rectal indomethacin than that of patients receiving rectal diclofenac (7.8% (95% CI, 6.4-9.3%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 2.2-5.3%), p = 0.009). The PEP rates of high-risk patients and average-risk patients were 8.9% (95% CI, 5.6-12.2%) and 6.4% (95% CI, 5.1-7.6%), respectively (p = 0.160).
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of PEP was higher in patients receiving 100 mg rectal indomethacin than patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac. The effect of 100 mg diclofenac versus indomethacin on preventing PEP requires further study.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Incidence; Pancreatitis; Indomethacin; Hyperplasia
PubMed: 35941494
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05399-6 -
Hip International : the Journal of... Mar 2022Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can...
BACKGROUND
Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can possibly be prevented by postoperative treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or radiotherapy. Diclofenac is 1 of the most used drugs in HO prophylaxis because it is effective and long established. However, there is still no uniform therapy regimen in terms of duration, dose and side effect profile regarding the application of diclofenac in HO prevention. We have, therefore, conducted the first systematic review investigating diclofenac for HO prophylaxis after hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy, dose and duration of diclofenac therapy in preventing HO after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS
According to the PRISMA Guidelines we performed a systematic literature search in EMBASE via Ovid, in MEDLINE via PubMed and in the Cochrane Library addressing all studies in English and German regarding the prophylaxis of HO with diclofenac after THA. We identified 731 potential studies and included 6 randomised controlled trials with 957 patients.
RESULTS
The studies were heterogeneous with regard to duration of therapy, dose, comparative group and follow-up period. The therapy duration ranged from 9 to 42 days, the applied diclofenac doses ranged from 75 mg to 150 mg daily. Patients treated with diclofenac showed a significant reduction in the total incidence of HO regarding to the Brooker Classification compared to placebo and no clinically relevant ossifications occured (Brooker III and IV).
CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac is efficacious in the prevention of HO and can be used routinely after THA. The existing data indicates that a minimum dose of 75 mg diclofenac per day started on the first postoperative day for a minimum of 9 days is needed to prevent HO with an acceptable incidence of side effects, such as gastrointestinal symptoms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Diclofenac; Humans; Incidence; Ossification, Heterotopic
PubMed: 33272062
DOI: 10.1177/1120700020978194 -
Cureus Jul 2023Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive... (Review)
Review
Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive administration of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids has been employed, resulting in a notable decrease in postoperative complications like pain, facial swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis. This systematic review's primary goal was to investigate the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with dexamethasone and diclofenac in minimizing the post-surgical complications following the surgical extraction of the mandibular third molars. The systematic search was carried out to identify relevant literature in digital databases including PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 1990 to January 2022. The search used specific keywords. The randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dexamethasone and diclofenac or dexamethasone alone compared to diclofenac or placebo as preemptive analgesics were considered inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Case reports, literature reviews, letters to the editor, and non-English publications were not included. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts, and articles fulfilling the study criteria were included. After reading the full text and data collection, analysis was performed. The included article's bias was evaluated by the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A digital database search yielded a total of 207 articles. After excluding duplicates and articles written in languages other than English, 90 were removed. Based on the title and abstract, out of 177, 95 studies were excluded. After full-text reading of 22 articles, 17 were eliminated because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining five studies were found eligible and included in the systematic review. Four studies were of low risk, while one study had some concerns. Two studies evaluated the combination of dexamethasone with diclofenac, while three evaluated dexamethasone alone. Total samples included samples of 436 third-molar surgeries in 420 patients. There was a substantial decrease in the mean pain score and swelling measurement when diclofenac alone was compared with coadministration of diclofenac and dexamethasone. Preemptive administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac has been shown to effectively reduce pain and facial swelling, with the exception of trismus, in third-molar surgeries when compared to diclofenac alone. As a result, it is recommended to administer these drugs prior to the commencement of third-molar extraction. However, further research is mandatory, specifically good quality randomized controlled trials involving large cohorts, in order to assess any significant variations and validate these findings.
PubMed: 37654946
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42709