-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2021Acupuncture has been widely used for acute low back pain (LBP), yet there remains continued controversy regarding its efficacy. Therefore, we aimed to critically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture has been widely used for acute low back pain (LBP), yet there remains continued controversy regarding its efficacy. Therefore, we aimed to critically evaluate the evidence for acupuncture as an effective treatment for acute LBP.
METHODS
English and Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved acupuncture for acute LBP published up to May 2020. Data on the outcomes of pain intensity, functional status, and analgesic use were extracted. The meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3, and pooled data were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Of the 13 eligible RCTs identified, 11 RCTs (involving 707 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture has a statistically significant association with improvements in VAS (visual analog scale) score [MD: -1.75 (95% CI: -2.39, -1.12)]. Two studies indicated that acupuncture did not influence the RMDQ (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) scores more than the control treatment [MD: -2.34 (95% CI: -5.34, 0.67)]. Three studies suggested that acupuncture influenced the ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) scores more than the control treatment [MD: -12.84 (95% CI: -23.94, -1.74)]. Two studies suggested that acupuncture influenced the number of pills more than the control treatment [MD: -3.19 (95% CI: -3.45, -2.92)].
CONCLUSIONS
Acupuncture treatment of acute LBP was associated with modest improvements in the VAS score, ODI score, and the number of pills, but not the RMDQ score. Our findings should be considered with caution due to the low power original studies. High-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of acupuncture in the treatment of acute LBP.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Acute Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33894708
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1998 -
Journal of the American Dental... May 2023The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Acute Pain; Pulpitis; Analgesics
PubMed: 37105668
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2023.02.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32297973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013581 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jan 2024Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain.
METHODS
To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry.
RESULTS
We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review ( = 17 974) and 47 cohorts ( = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain.
INTERPRETATION
Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Prospective Studies; Acute Pain; Databases, Factual; Disease Progression
PubMed: 38253366
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230542 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Nov 2014There are long-held concerns that analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain may obscure the physical examination and lead to missing a diagnosis of appendicitis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
There are long-held concerns that analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain may obscure the physical examination and lead to missing a diagnosis of appendicitis. Despite evidence to the contrary, analgesia continues to be underutilized and suboptimally dosed in children with acute abdominal pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if opioids provide analgesia without an increase in side effects and appendicitis-related complications.
METHODS
Trials were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1946-2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013), CINAHL (1981-2013), and Google Scholar (2013). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of children aged 0-18 years with acute abdominal pain that compared any opioid analgesic to placebo were included. The methodologic qualities of studies and the overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, respectively.
RESULTS
Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, and each compared a single-dose parenteral opioid to a placebo, providing data on 342 children aged 5 to 18 years. The pooled mean pre/post difference in self-reported pain scores was 19.61 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.16 to 40.37 mm) lower in those receiving opioid analgesia. There was no significant increase in the risk of perforation or abscess associated with opioids in cases of appendicitis (relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.93). The risk of side effects was significantly greater in patients who received opioids (RR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.10 to 33.49). Subtherapeutic dosing of opioids was detected in all six trials.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of opioids in undifferentiated acute abdominal pain in children is associated with no difference in pain scores and an increased risk of mild side effects. However, there is no increased risk of perforation or abscess. The overall quality of evidence is low, suggesting the need for larger, high-quality trials that are powered to detect both serious complications of appendicitis and determine the most efficacious opioid dosing for children.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Pain Management
PubMed: 25377394
DOI: 10.1111/acem.12509 -
Journal of the American Dental... Aug 2023Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.
Topics: Humans; Molar, Third; Acute Pain; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dry Socket; Postoperative Complications; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37500235
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2023.04.018 -
Medicine May 2017Glucocorticoids are increasingly used perioperatively, principally to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and acute postoperative pain following total hip... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are increasingly used perioperatively, principally to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and acute postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The authors hypothesized that preoperative intravenous glucocorticoids is associated with less pain scores and PONV without increasing the complications after THA.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) were searched with the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search cutoff date was set at November 6, 2016. Participants were patients who were prepared for primary THA. Intervention was preoperative intravenous glucocorticoids for postoperative pain control. Outcomes including the visual analog scale (VAS) scores at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 24 and 48 hours post operation, the occurrence of PONV and total morphine consumption were recorded. We calculated risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies were evaluated, which included 297 patients who underwent hip surgery with intravenous glucocorticoid treatment and control patients who underwent hip surgery without glucocorticoid treatment. Pooled results indicated that intravenous glucocorticoid treatment was associated with a reduction of VAS scores at the PACU (WMD = -9.06, 95% CI -12.67 to -5.45, P = .000) and total morphine consumption by 15.68 mg (WMD = -15.68, 95% CI -24.60 to -6.75, P = .001). No significant difference was observed in the VAS scores at 24 and 48 hours between the intravenous glucocorticoid and placebo treatments. Intravenous steroids can decrease the occurrence of PONV (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.82, P = .029).
CONCLUSION
Intravenous glucocorticoid treatment can decrease early pain intensity and PONV after THA. However, the evidence for the use of glucocorticoids is limited by the low number of studies and variation in dosing regimens. Thus, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to identify the optimal drug protocol and determine the safety of intravenous glucocorticoids.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Analgesics; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28489787
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006872 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2020Management of pain is an important part of care in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol and Ketamine have both been introduced as alternatives to opioids in the ED... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Management of pain is an important part of care in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol and Ketamine have both been introduced as alternatives to opioids in the ED and post-operative setting. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of available literature to compare the analgesic efficacy, and side effect profile of these two medications in management of severe acute pain.
METHODS
This is a systematic review based on the PRISMA protocol. In this study, peer-reviewed papers published by March 3, 2020, which compared analgesic effects of tramadol and ketamine in management of acute pain were included.
RESULT
The initial search of online databases identified 2826 non-duplicate records. Finally, three papers available in full text were analyzed for study quality. The results show that ketamine has consistently been shown to be superior to tramadol for pain control and causes fewer significant side effects.
CONCLUSION
Results of this review show that low-dose ketamine is more effective than tramadol in pain control, while causing fewer side effects.
PubMed: 33134964
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2008Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.
METHODS
PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.
RESULTS
Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Disease; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Isomerism; Ketoprofen; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18976451
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6904-8-11 -
Frontiers in Pain Research (Lausanne,... 2022Pain and depression frequently co-occur. Due to its antidepressant and analgesic properties, ketamine has been used for the management of treatment-resistant depression... (Review)
Review
Pain and depression frequently co-occur. Due to its antidepressant and analgesic properties, ketamine has been used for the management of treatment-resistant depression and pain. This systematic review examined the literature on the efficacy of sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine in individuals experiencing comorbid depression and chronic pain (CDCP), as well as comorbid depression and acute pain (CDAP). A secondary objective was to provide an assessment of dosage, route, and adverse effects of ketamine treatment for CDCP and CDAP. A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases, coupled with a manual screening of the bibliography sections of included articles. In addition, registered ongoing and planned trials were searched on Clinicaltrials.gov. The end date of the search was April 9th, 2022. Included studies assessed changes in depression and pain in patients receiving at least one sub-anesthetic dose of ketamine. Assessment of quality was conducted using the GRADE checklist. Of the 7 CDCP clinical trials, 3 reported a reduction in depression and pain, 3 reported a reduction in depression or pain only, and 1 reported no improvement in either comorbidity. Among the 7 CDAP clinical trials, 4 studies found improvements in depression and pain while the remaining 3 reported improvements in only one parameter. Ten of the 12 case studies and 2 of the 3 observational studies assessing CDCP and CDAP found improvements in pain and depression scores post-treatment with effects of variable duration. The planned methodologies of the registered clinical trials are in line with those of the published research. Preliminary evidence supports the efficacy of ketamine in treating CDCP and CDAP. However, the current review identified a small number of heterogeneous studies with mixed results, preventing comprehensive conclusions. More longitudinal placebo-controlled studies are needed to identify the effects of ketamine for patients with CDCP and CDAP.
PubMed: 36353699
DOI: 10.3389/fpain.2022.1022767