-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2010NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between oral NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 36 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the benefits and harms of the following interventions: differences in efficacy among different oral NSAIDs, between oral and topical NSAIDs, and between oral NSAIDs and alternative analgesics; dose-response relationship of oral NSAIDs; and H(2) blockers, misoprostol, or proton pump inhibitors to mitigate gastrointestinal adverse effects of oral NSAIDs.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Incidence; Osteoarthritis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Sprains and Strains; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21733202
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2015Aspirin administration before cardiac surgery represents a balance between preventing perioperative thrombotic events and promoting surgical bleeding. Clear evidence to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aspirin administration before cardiac surgery represents a balance between preventing perioperative thrombotic events and promoting surgical bleeding. Clear evidence to guide the preoperative use of aspirin in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is lacking.This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative aspirin, in patients undergoing coronary artery surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials involving patients undergoing coronary artery surgery assigned to preoperative aspirin therapy or no aspirin/placebo. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2014 without language restrictions. Two reviewers performed independent quality review and data extraction. Efficacy outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality, and safety outcomes of blood loss, red cell transfusion, and surgical re-exploration were compared.
RESULTS
In 13 trials (n=2399), preoperative aspirin therapy reduced the risk of MI (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.96; P=0.03), without a reduction in mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.42-3.22; P=0.77). Preoperative aspirin increased postoperative chest tube drainage (mean difference 168 ml; 95% CI, 39-297 ml; P=0.01), red cell transfusion (mean difference 141 ml; 95% CI, 55-226; P=0.001) and need for surgical re-exploration (OR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.15-2.96; P=0.01). Studies were of low methodological quality, with significant heterogeneity identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients undergoing coronary artery surgery, preoperative aspirin reduces perioperative MI, but at a cost of increased bleeding, blood transfusion, and surgical re-exploration.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Coronary Vessels; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 26082471
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev164 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs...
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs can be influenced by various factors, including the use of concomitant medications.
METHODS
We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of concomitant medications on ICIs efficacy, published from inception to January 1, 2023. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, and re-synthesized data using a random-effects model and evidence stratification.
RESULTS
We included 23 publications, comprising 11 concomitant medications and 112 associations. Class II-IV evidence suggested that antibiotics have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy. However, ICIs efficacy against melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was not affected, this effect was related to the exposure window (class IV). Class III evidence suggested that proton pump inhibitors have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy; nevertheless, the efficacy against melanoma and renal cell carcinoma was not affected, and the effect was related to exposure before the initiation of ICIs therapy (class II). Although class II/III evidence suggested that steroids have a negative impact, this effect was not observed when used for non-cancer indications and immune-related adverse events (class IV). Class IV evidence suggested that opioids reduce ICIs efficacy, whereas statins and probiotics may improve ICIs efficacy. ICIs efficacy was not affected by histamine 2 receptor antagonists, aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics, PPIs, steroids, and opioids has a negative impact on the efficacy of ICIs. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of tumor, the timing of exposure, and the intended application. Weak evidence suggests that statins and probiotics may enhance the efficacy of ICIs. Aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and NSAIDs do not appear to affect the efficacy of ICIs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO,identifier, CRD42022328681.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Esophageal Neoplasms; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; Melanoma; Metformin; Steroids; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37841249
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218386 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβGPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antibodies, Anticardiolipin; Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Bias; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Live Birth; Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor; Placebos; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta 2-Glycoprotein I
PubMed: 32358837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012852.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022(CR) is the dry rhizome of L., a Cyperaceae plant. It has a long history of clinical medication and is known as the "holy medicine" of gynecology. CR smells sweet and... (Review)
Review
(CR) is the dry rhizome of L., a Cyperaceae plant. It has a long history of clinical medication and is known as the "holy medicine" of gynecology. CR smells sweet and bitter. It has the effect of soothing the liver and relieving depression, regulating qi, regulating meridian and relieving pain. It can be used to treat liver qi stagnation, chest pain, spleen and stomach qi stagnation, hernia pain, irregular menstruation and other diseases. At present, the main chemical constituents isolated from CR are volatile oil, flavonoids and terpenes. Modern pharmacological studies have shown that CR has a wide range of pharmacological activities, including antidepressant, hypoglycemic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antipyretic and analgesic effects. In this paper, the botany, traditional application, phytochemistry, pharmacological effects, processing and other aspects of CR are reviewed. At the same time, the shortcomings of current research of CR are discussed in depth, and the possible solutions are put forward in order to find a breakthrough point for future research of CR.
PubMed: 36278199
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.965902 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.
MAIN RESULTS
Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27271789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012230 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022In people with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated and can cause blood clots to form and block an artery in the brain, resulting in damage to part of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In people with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated and can cause blood clots to form and block an artery in the brain, resulting in damage to part of the brain. Such damage gives rise to the symptoms of stroke. Antiplatelet therapy might reduce the volume of brain damaged by ischaemia and also reduce the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke, thereby reducing the risk of early death and improving long-term outcomes in survivors. However, antiplatelet therapy might also increase the risk of fatal or disabling intracranial haemorrhage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of immediate oral antiplatelet therapy (i.e. started as soon as possible and no later than two weeks after stroke onset) in people with acute presumed ischaemic stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and two trials registers, and performed forward reference/cited reference searching in August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antiplatelet therapy (started within 14 days of the stroke) with control in people with definite or presumed ischaemic stroke.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality. For the included trials, they extracted and cross-checked the data. They assessed risk of bias of each study using the Risk of Bias 1 (RoB1) tool and overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies involving 42,226 participants. Three new trials have been added since the last update (743 participants). As per the previous version of this review, two trials testing aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg once daily, started within 48 hours of onset, contributed 96% of the data. The risk of bias was low. The maximum follow-up was six months. With treatment, there was a decrease in death or dependency at the end of follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 0.99; 7 RCTs, 42,034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 people treated with aspirin, 13 people would avoid death or dependency (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 79).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg daily, given orally (or by nasogastric tube or per rectum in people who cannot swallow) and started within 48 hours of onset of presumed ischaemic stroke, significantly decreased death and dependency, and reduced the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without a major risk of early haemorrhagic complications; long-term outcomes were improved.
Topics: Aspirin; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Ischemic Stroke; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 35028933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000029.pub4 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2022Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties.... (Review)
Review
Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. Dexketoprofen has a stronger effect than ketoprofen, which makes it a readily used preparation. The review aims to find in recent original publications data about dexketoprofen and its comparison with other painkilling medications. The systematic literature review was conducted in November 2021 (2018 onwards). We selected 12 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases. In the last 4 years, there have been many publications that shed a new light on dexketoprofen. The article is a comparative analysis of dexketoprofen's action vs other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the combination of dexketoprofen with tramadol vs paracetamol with tramadol. The findings of the review confirm that dexketoprofen is a very good pain reliever more potent than paracetamol. Dexketoprofen produces similar effects to lidocaine and dexmedetomidine. Complex preparations containing dexketoprofen and tramadol are very effective painkilling tandem and are more effective than tramadol and paracetamol therapy in the treatment of acute pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketoprofen; Tramadol; Tromethamine
PubMed: 35299123
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112819 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2023To analyze the effects of several drug for pain prevention in adults undergoing craniotomy for elective brain surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To analyze the effects of several drug for pain prevention in adults undergoing craniotomy for elective brain surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The inclusion criteria were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for preventing post-operative pain in adults (aged 18 years or older) undergoing craniotomies. The main outcome measures were represented by the mean differences in validated pain intensity scales administered at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h post-operatively. The pooled estimates were calculated using random forest models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB2 revised tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE guidelines. In total, 3359 records were identified through databases and registers' searching. After study selection, 29 studies and 2376 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk of bias was low in 78.5% of the studies included. The pooled estimates of the following drug classes were provided: NSAIDs, acetaminophen, local anesthetics and steroids for scalp infiltration and scalp block, gabapentinoids and agonists of adrenal receptors. High-certainty evidence suggests that NSAIDs and acetaminophen may have a moderate effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 24 h after surgery compared to control and that ropivacaine scalp block may have a bigger impact on reducing post-craniotomy pain 6 h after surgery compared to control. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that NSAIDs may have a more remarkable effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 12 h after surgery compared to control. No moderate-to-high-certainty evidence indicates effective treatments for post-craniotomy pain prevention 48 h after surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative; Brain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37241063
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050831