-
Journal of Dental Research Apr 2023This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45), and naproxen 400-440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Oxycodone; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Tooth Extraction; Acute Pain
PubMed: 36631957
DOI: 10.1177/00220345221139230 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.
RESULTS
98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019145257.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Male; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36948512
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072962 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diclofenac; Drug Eruptions; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Nervous System Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32805127
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3601 -
Pain Feb 2021The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the...
The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32826760
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002046 -
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Jan 2022Increases in cat ownership worldwide mean more cats are requiring veterinary care. Illness, trauma and surgery can result in acute pain, and effective management of pain...
PRACTICAL RELEVANCE
Increases in cat ownership worldwide mean more cats are requiring veterinary care. Illness, trauma and surgery can result in acute pain, and effective management of pain is required for optimal feline welfare (ie, physical health and mental wellbeing). Validated pain assessment tools are available and pain management plans for the individual patient should incorporate pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy. Preventive and multimodal analgesia, including local anaesthesia, are important principles of pain management, and the choice of analgesic drugs should take into account the type, severity and duration of pain, presence of comorbidities and avoidance of adverse effects. Nursing care, environmental modifications and cat friendly handling are likewise pivotal to the pain management plan, as is a team approach, involving the cat carer.
CLINICAL CHALLENGES
Pain has traditionally been under-recognised in cats. Pain assessment tools are not widely implemented, and signs of pain in this species may be subtle. The unique challenges of feline metabolism and comorbidities may lead to undertreatment of pain and the development of peripheral and central sensitisation. Lack of availability or experience with various analgesic drugs may compromise effective pain management.
EVIDENCE BASE
These Guidelines have been created by a panel of experts and the International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM) based on the available literature and the authors' experience. They are aimed at general practitioners to assist in the assessment, prevention and management of acute pain in feline patients, and to provide a practical guide to selection and dosing of effective analgesic agents.
Topics: Acute Pain; Animals; Cats; Pain Management
PubMed: 34937455
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X211066268 -
Anesthesiology Aug 2020Widely used for acute pain management, the clinical benefit from perioperative use of gabapentinoids is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the...
BACKGROUND
Widely used for acute pain management, the clinical benefit from perioperative use of gabapentinoids is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the analgesic effect and adverse events with the perioperative use of gabapentinoids in adult patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials studying the use of gabapentinoids in adult patients undergoing surgery were included. The primary outcome was the intensity of postoperative acute pain. Secondary outcomes included the intensity of postoperative subacute pain, incidence of postoperative chronic pain, cumulative opioid use, persistent opioid use, lengths of stay, and adverse events. The clinical significance of the summary estimates was assessed based on established thresholds for minimally important differences.
RESULTS
In total, 281 trials (N = 24,682 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, gabapentinoids were associated with a lower postoperative pain intensity (100-point scale) at 6 h (mean difference, -10; 95% CI, -12 to -9), 12 h (mean difference, -9; 95% CI, -10 to -7), 24 h (mean difference, -7; 95% CI, -8 to -6), and 48 h (mean difference, -3; 95% CI, -5 to -1). This effect was not clinically significant ranging below the minimally important difference (10 points out of 100) for each time point. These results were consistent regardless of the type of drug (gabapentin or pregabalin). No effect was observed on pain intensity at 72 h, subacute and chronic pain. The use of gabapentinoids was associated with a lower risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting but with more dizziness and visual disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS
No clinically significant analgesic effect for the perioperative use of gabapentinoids was observed. There was also no effect on the prevention of postoperative chronic pain and a greater risk of adverse events. These results do not support the routine use of pregabalin or gabapentin for the management of postoperative pain in adult patients.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Gabapentin; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin
PubMed: 32667154
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003428 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. We incorporated 76 new studies into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Blood Specimen Collection; Pain Management; Pain, Procedural; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Child, Preschool
PubMed: 37314064
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub4 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2019Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Muscle energy techniques are applied to reduce pain and increase range of motion. These are applied to a variety of pathological conditions and on asymptomatic subjects. There is however limited knowledge on their effectiveness and which protocol may be the most beneficial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy of muscle energy techniques (MET) in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects.
DESIGN
Systematic Review.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the following database: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, NLM Pubmed and ScienceDirect. Studies regarding MET in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were considered for investigation. The main outcomes took into account range of motion, chronic and acute pain and trigger points. Two trained investigators independently screened eligible studies according to the eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Randomized control trials (RCT's) were analyzed for quality using the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies were considered eligible and included in the quantitative synthesis: 14 regarding symptomatic patients and 12 regarding asymptomatic subjects. Quality assessment of the studies through the PEDro scale observed a "moderate to high" quality of the included records.
CONCLUSIONS
MET are an effective treatment for reducing chronic and acute pain of the lower back. MET are also effective in treating chronic neck pain and chronic lateral epicondylitis. MET can be applied to increase range of motion of a joint when a functional limitation is present. Other techniques seem to be more appropriate compared to MET for trigger points.
Topics: Acute Pain; Asymptomatic Diseases; Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31462989
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0258-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The...
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Attention; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain Perception; Pain, Procedural; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 33089901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010686.pub2 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Feb 2022The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-dose ketamine infusion in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) who presented with acute sickle... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-dose ketamine infusion in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) who presented with acute sickle vasoocclusive crisis (VOC).
METHODS
This study was a parallel-group, prospective, randomized, double-blind, pragmatic trial. Participants were randomized to receive a single dose of either ketamine or morphine, infused over 30 min. Primary outcome was mean difference in the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score over 2 h. NPRS was recorded every 30 min for a maximum of 180 min and secondary outcomes were cumulative dose of opioids, emergency department (ED) length of stay, hospital admission, change in vital signs, and drug-related side effects. Authors performed the analysis using intention-to-treat principle.
RESULT
A total of 278 adults with SCD and who presented with acute sickle VOC participated in this trial. A total of 138 were allocated to the ketamine group. Mean (±standard deviation [SD]) NPRS scores over 2 h were 5.7 (±2.13) and 5.6 (±1.90) in the ketamine and morphine groups. The ketamine group received significantly lower cumulative doses of morphine during their ED stay (mean ± SD = 4.5 ± 4.6 mg) than of the morphine group (mean ± SD = 8.5 ± 7.55 mg). Both groups had similar rates of hospital admission: 6.3% in the ketamine group had drug-related side effects compared to 2.2% in the morphine group.
CONCLUSION
Early use of ketamine in adults with VOC resulted in a meaningful reduction in pain scores over a 2-h period and reduced the cumulative morphine dose in the ED with no significant drug-related side effects in the ketamine-treated group.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Ketamine; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34449939
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14382