-
Obstetric Medicine Sep 2011Mitochondrial diseases are heterogeneous in clinical presentation and genotype. The incidence of known pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations in the general population... (Review)
Review
Mitochondrial diseases are heterogeneous in clinical presentation and genotype. The incidence of known pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations in the general population is 1 in 500. Little is known about the implications of pregnancy for women with mitochondrial disease. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on mitochondrial disease in pregnancy. Ten case reports were identified. The most common complications were threatened preterm labour (5 women) and preeclampsia (4 women). Two women experienced magnesium sulphate toxicity. Pregnancy had a varied effect on mitochondrial disease with some women being asymptomatic; others developing mild symptoms such as exercise intolerance or muscle weakness which resolved postnatally; and others developed more serious, persistent symptoms such as symptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, persistent paraesthesia and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Women with mitochondrial disease appear to be at increased risk of complications during pregnancy and labour but further prospective cohort studies are needed.
PubMed: 27579099
DOI: 10.1258/om.2011.110008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Acute high altitude illness is defined as a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to high altitudes. It is more common above 2500... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute high altitude illness is defined as a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to high altitudes. It is more common above 2500 metres, but can be seen at lower elevations, especially in susceptible people. Acute high altitude illness includes a wide spectrum of syndromes defined under the terms 'acute mountain sickness' (AMS), 'high altitude cerebral oedema' and 'high altitude pulmonary oedema'. There are several interventions available to treat this condition, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological; however, there is a great uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness, and safety of interventions (non-pharmacological and pharmacological), as monotherapy or in any combination, for treating acute high altitude illness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies on 10 August 2017. We did not apply any language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for individuals suffering from acute high altitude illness: acute mountain sickness, high altitude pulmonary oedema or high altitude cerebral oedema.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of study reports, the risk of bias for each and performed the data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion with a third author. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies enrolling a total of 468 participants. We identified two ongoing studies. All studies included adults, and two studies included both teenagers and adults. The 13 studies took place in high altitude areas, mostly in the European Alps. Twelve studies included participants with acute mountain sickness, and one study included participants with high altitude pulmonary oedema. Follow-up was usually less than one day. We downgraded the quality of the evidence in most cases due to risk of bias and imprecision. We report results for the main comparisons as follows.Non-pharmacological interventions (3 studies, 124 participants)All-cause mortality and complete relief of AMS symptoms were not reported in the three included trials. One study in 64 participants found that a simulated descent of 193 millibars versus 20 millibars may reduce the average of symptoms to 2.5 vs 3.1 units after 12 hours of treatment (clinical score ranged from 0 to 11 ‒ worse; reduction of 0.6 points on average with the intervention; low quality of evidence). In addition, no complications were found with use of hyperbaric chambers versus supplementary oxygen (one study; 29 participants; low-quality evidence).Pharmacological interventions (11 trials, 375 participants)All-cause mortality was not reported in the 11 included trials. One trial found a greater proportion of participants with complete relief of AMS symptoms after 12 and 16 hours when dexamethasone was administered in comparison with placebo (47.1% versus 0%, respectively; one study; 35 participants; low quality of evidence). Likewise, when acetazolamide was compared with placebo, the effects on symptom severity was uncertain (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.15, 95% CI -2.56 to 0.27; 2 studies, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of dexamethasone in comparison with placebo in 35 participants found a reduction in symptom severity (difference on change in the AMS score: 3.7 units reported by authors; moderate quality of evidence). The effects from two additional trials comparing gabapentin with placebo and magnesium with placebo on symptom severity at the end of treatment were uncertain. For gabapentin versus placebo: mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 2.92 versus 4.75, respectively; 24 participants; low quality of evidence. For magnesium versus placebo: mean scores of 9 and 10.3 units, respectively; 25 participants; low quality of evidence). The trials did not find adverse events from either treatment (low quality of evidence). One trial comparing magnesium sulphate versus placebo found that flushing was a frequent event in the magnesium sulphate arm (percentage of flushing: 75% versus 7.7%, respectively; one study; 25 participants; low quality of evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited available evidence to determine the effects of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in treating acute high altitude illness. Low-quality evidence suggests that dexamethasone and acetazolamide might reduce AMS score compared to placebo. However, the clinical benefits and harms related to these potential interventions remain unclear. Overall, the evidence is of limited practical significance in the clinical field. High-quality research in this field is needed, since most trials were poorly conducted and reported.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Altitude Sickness; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Atmospheric Pressure; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dexamethasone; Gabapentin; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Magnesium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29959871
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009567.pub2 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Apr 2023A growing worldwide focus on opioid-free anaesthesia entails multimodal analgesic strategies involving non-opioids such as magnesium sulphate (MgSO). Several systematic... (Review)
Review
Is intravenous magnesium sulphate a suitable adjuvant in postoperative pain management? - A critical and systematic review of methodology in randomized controlled trials.
A growing worldwide focus on opioid-free anaesthesia entails multimodal analgesic strategies involving non-opioids such as magnesium sulphate (MgSO). Several systematic reviews have concluded there is beneficial analgesic effect of MgSO administration but do not take considerable heterogeneity among the studies into consideration. Medical literature published until June 2021 was searched in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Central and Web of Science: The final search yielded a total of 5,672 articles. We included only randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of intravenous MgSO on opioid consumption and acute postoperative pain when compared to either placebo or standardized analgesic treatment. The primary aim was to compare the homogeneity of essential variables and confounders. A post-hoc meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in both postoperative morphine consumption (-6.12 mg) and pain score (-12.32 VAS points) in favour of the MgSO-groups. Data for meta-analysis was missing from 19 studies (45%) on morphine consumption and 29 studies (69%) for pain score, the majority of which reports no effect for either morphine consumption or pain score. The calculated heterogeneity among the included studies was considerable for both outcomes; =91% for morphine consumption and =96% for pain score. Although we found a per se reduction in opioid consumption and pain score, methodological heterogeneity and clinical shortcomings of pre-, intra-, and post anaesthetic data precludes conclusions on clinical importance of intraoperative intravenous MgSO. In addition, the reduction is likely less than what can be gained from using standardized analgesic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Magnesium Sulfate; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36473053
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2022-0048 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2010Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, remains a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, remains a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants are used to control eclamptic fits and to prevent further fits.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate compared with diazepam when used for the care of women with eclampsia. Magnesium sulphate is compared with phenytoin and with lytic cocktail in other Cochrane reviews.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2010) and CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing magnesium sulphate (intravenous or intramuscular administration) with diazepam for women with a clinical diagnosis of eclampsia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed and extracted data independently.
MAIN RESULTS
We have included seven trials, involving 1396 women. Three trials (1030 women) were good quality. Magnesium sulphate was associated with a reduction in maternal death (seven trials;1396 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.92) and recurrence of seizures (seven trials;1390 women; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.55) compared to diazepam. There were no clear differences in other measures of maternal morbidity.There was no clear difference in perinatal mortality (four trials; 788 infants; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34) or neonatal mortality (four trials; 759 infants; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.84). In the magnesium sulphate group, fewer liveborn babies had an Apgar score less than seven at one minute (two trials; 597 babies; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87) or at five minutes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90), and fewer appeared to need intubation at the place of birth (two trials; 591 infants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00). There was no difference in admission to a special care nursery (four trials; 834 infants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05), but fewer babies in the magnesium sulphate group had a length of stay more than seven days (three trials 631 babies; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium sulphate for women with eclampsia reduces the risk ratio of maternal death and of recurrence of seizures, compared with diazepam.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Eclampsia; Female; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Magnesium Sulfate; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21154341
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000127.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2010Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, is a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, is a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants have been used to control eclamptic fits and to prevent further seizures.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate compared with lytic cocktail (usually chlorpromazine, promethazine and pethidine) when used for the care of women with eclampsia. Magnesium sulphate is compared with diazepam and with phenytoin in other Cochrane reviews.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (July 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing magnesium sulphate (intravenous or intramuscular administration) with lytic cocktail for women with a clinical diagnosis of eclampsia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (L Duley and D Chou) assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three small trials (total 397 women) of average quality in the review. Magnesium sulphate was associated with fewer maternal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.59; 3 trials, 397 women) and was better at preventing further seizures (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12; 3 trials, 397 women) than lytic cocktail. Magnesium sulphate was also associated with less respiratory depression (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.91; 2 trials, 198 women), less coma (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74; 1 trial, 108 women), and less pneumonia (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.67; 2 trials, 307 women). There was no clear difference in the RR for any death of the baby (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.38, random effects; 2 trials, 177 babies).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium sulphate, rather than lytic cocktail, for women with eclampsia reduces the RR of maternal death, of further seizures and of serious maternal morbidity (respiratory depression, coma, pneumonia). Magnesium sulphate is the anticonvulsant of choice for women with eclampsia; the use of lytic cocktail should be abandoned.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Chlorpromazine; Drug Combinations; Eclampsia; Female; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Meperidine; Pregnancy; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20824833
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002960.pub2 -
Asia Pacific Allergy Jan 2012Magnesium sulfate (MgSO(4)) has been considered as an adjunct therapy for severe and life-threatening asthma exacerbation. The literature search was performed using...
Magnesium sulfate (MgSO(4)) has been considered as an adjunct therapy for severe and life-threatening asthma exacerbation. The literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding magnesium therapy in acute exacerbation of adult asthma. A total of 16 trials and 4 meta-analyses were identified. As results, intravenous MgSO(4) was beneficial in severe exacerbation, but evidence for nebulized magnesium was insufficient. However, larger trials are required to draw confirmative conclusions on the efficacy. Regarding the safety concern, the risk of major toxicity appears to be very low at usual doses described in the literature. Additionally, results from 4 surveys were examined on the gaps between knowledge and practice, and on the barrier to the use of MgSO(4) at emergency departments. This literature review summarized the up-to-date evidence on the issues regarding the use of MgSO(4) for acute asthma. We expect more studies to be conducted for evidence making in the Asian-Pacific regions.
PubMed: 22348210
DOI: 10.5415/apallergy.2012.2.1.76 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄) is one of numerous treatment options... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄) is one of numerous treatment options available during acute exacerbations. While the efficacy of intravenous MgSO₄ has been demonstrated, the role of inhaled MgSO₄ is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled MgSO₄ administered in acute asthma.
SPECIFIC AIMS
to quantify the effects of inhaled MgSO₄ I) in addition to combination treatment with inhaled β₂-agonist and ipratropium bromide; ii) in addition to inhaled β₂-agonist; and iii) in comparison to inhaled β₂-agonist.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials and online trials registries in September 2017. We supplemented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies and by contact with trialists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs including adults or children with acute asthma were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies if patients were treated with nebulised MgSO₄ alone or in combination with β₂-agonist or ipratropium bromide or both, and were compared with the same co-intervention alone or inactive control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias. We made efforts to collect missing data from authors. We present results, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary function, clinical severity scores and vital signs; and risk ratios (RRs) for hospital admission. We used risk differences (RDs) to analyse adverse events because events were rare.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials (43 references) of varying methodological quality were eligible; they included 2907 randomised patients (2777 patients completed). Nine of the 25 included studies involved adults; four included adult and paediatric patients; eight studies enrolled paediatric patients; and in the remaining four studies the age of participants was not stated. The design, definitions, intervention and outcomes were different in all 25 studies; this heterogeneity made direct comparisons difficult. The quality of the evidence presented ranged from high to very low, with most outcomes graded as low or very low. This was largely due to concerns about the methodological quality of the included studies and imprecision in the pooled effect estimates. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled β₂-agonist and ipratropiumWe included seven studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, results were inconsistent overall and the largest study reporting this outcome found no between-group difference at 60 minutes (MD -0.3 % predicted peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), 95% CI -2.71% to 2.11%). Admissions to hospital at initial presentation may be reduced by the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; participants = 1308; studies = 4; I² = 52%) but no difference was detected for re-admissions or escalation of care to ITU/HDU. Serious adverse events during admission were rare. There was no difference between groups for all adverse events during admission (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; participants = 1197; studies = 2). Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled β₂-agonistWe included 13 studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, none of the pooled results showed a conclusive benefit as measured by FEV1 or PEFR. Pooled results for hospital admission showed a point estimate that favoured the combination of MgSO₄ and β₂-agonist, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of admissions increasing in the intervention group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15; participants = 375; studies = 6; I² = 0%). There were no serious adverse events reported by any of the included studies and no between-group difference for all adverse events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; participants = 694; studies = 5). Inhaled magnesium sulfate versus inhaled β₂-agonistWe included four studies in this comparison. The evidence for the efficacy of β₂-agonists in acute asthma is well-established and therefore this could be considered a historical comparison. Two studies reported a benefit of β₂-agonist over MgSO₄ alone for PEFR and two studies reported no difference; we did not pool these results. Admissions to hospital were only reported by one small study and events were rare, leading to an uncertain result. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies in this comparison; one small study reported mild to moderate adverse events but the result is imprecise.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with nebulised MgSO₄ may result in modest additional benefits for lung function and hospital admission when added to inhaled β₂-agonists and ipratropium bromide, but our confidence in the evidence is low and there remains substantial uncertainty. The recent large, well-designed trials have generally not demonstrated clinically important benefits. Nebulised MgSO₄ does not appear to be associated with an increase in serious adverse events. Individual studies suggest that those with more severe attacks and attacks of shorter duration may experience a greater benefit but further research into subgroups is warranted.Despite including 24 trials in this review update we were unable to pool data for all outcomes of interest and this has limited the strength of the conclusions reached. A core outcomes set for studies in acute asthma is needed. This is particularly important in paediatric studies where measuring lung function at the time of an exacerbation may not be possible. Placebo-controlled trials in patients not responding to standard maximal treatment, including inhaled β₂-agonists and ipratropium bromide and systemic steroids, may help establish if nebulised MgSO₄ has a role in acute asthma. However, the accumulating evidence suggests that a substantial benefit may be unlikely.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hospitalization; Humans; Ipratropium; Magnesium Sulfate; Patient Readmission; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Function Tests
PubMed: 29182799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003898.pub6 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2013Eighteen published trials have examined the use of neuraxial magnesium as a peri-operative adjunctive analgesic since 2002, with encouraging results. However, concurrent... (Review)
Review
Eighteen published trials have examined the use of neuraxial magnesium as a peri-operative adjunctive analgesic since 2002, with encouraging results. However, concurrent animal studies have reported clinical and histological evidence of neurological complications with similar weight-adjusted doses. The objectives of this quantitative systematic review were to assess both the analgesic efficacy and the safety of neuraxial magnesium. Eighteen trials comparing magnesium with placebo were identified. The time to first analgesic request increased by 11.1% after intrathecal magnesium administration (mean difference: 39.6 min; 95% CI 16.3-63.0 min; p = 0.0009), and by 72.2% after epidural administration (mean difference: 109.5 min; 95% CI 19.6-199.3 min; p = 0.02) with doses of between 50 and 100 mg. Four trials monitored for neurological complications: of the 140 patients included, only a 4-day persistent headache was recorded. Despite promising peri-operative analgesic effect, the risk of neurological complications resulting from neuraxial magnesium has not yet been adequately defined.
Topics: Analgesics; Headache; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23121635
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07337.x -
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal... Jan 2022High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.
RESULTS
Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.
CONCLUSION
Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.
Topics: Adenoma; Ascorbic Acid; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 33991373
DOI: 10.1111/den.14015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results. Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants). Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Ammonia; Acetic Acid; Pain
PubMed: 37272501
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009688.pub3