-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. COX-2 inhibitors have been developed to avoid COX-1 related gastrointestinal (GI) problems.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. COX-2 inhibitors have been developed to avoid COX-1 related gastrointestinal (GI) problems. Lumiracoxib has analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity comparable with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) in the management of post-operative pain, but with the advantage of better GI tolerability.
OBJECTIVES
To review the analgesic efficacy, duration of analgesia, and adverse effects of a single oral dose of lumiracoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults and compare it with established analgesics.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), and PubMed (February 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Single oral dose, randomised placebo controlled trials of lumiracoxib, in acute postoperative pain, in adult patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trials were quality scored and data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed pain relief (TOTPAR) was extracted and converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies (737 patients) met the inclusion criteria. In total 211 patients were treated with lumiracoxib 400 mg, 51 with lumiracoxib 100 mg, and 161 with placebo. Active comparators were naproxen 500 mg (60 patients), rofecoxib 50 mg (102), celecoxib 200 mg (101), and ibuprofen 400 mg (51). One hundred patients (48%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg had at least 50% pain relief over six hours, compared with 17 (11%) given placebo; RB 4.8 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.9), NNT 2.7 (2.2 to 3.5). Weighted median time to use of rescue medication was 7.4 hours for lumiracoxib 400 mg and 1.8 hours for placebo. Patient global assessment at study endpoint was rated as "excellent" by 71 patients (34%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg and 5 (3%) given placebo. Median time to onset of analgesia was shorter for lumiracoxib 400 mg (0.6 to 1.5 hours) than placebo (>12 hours), and use of rescue medication within 12 hours occurred in 64 patients (58%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg and 100 (91%) given placebo. Adverse events reported were generally mild to moderate in severity, with one serious adverse event reported in a patient given placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lumiracoxib 400 mg given as a single oral dose, is an effective analgesic for acute postoperative pain.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17943921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006865 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery, a frequent and debilitating condition. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery, a frequent and debilitating condition.
OBJECTIVES
To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of persistent pain six or 12 months after surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), PubMed (1966 to April 2012), EMBASE (1966 to May 2012) and CINAHL (1966 to May 2012) without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. The results were limited to randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included trials, review articles and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing local anaesthetics or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome at six or 12 months after surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. Results are presented as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We grouped studies according to surgical interventions. We employed the Chi(2) test and calculated the I(2) statistic to investigate study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 23 RCTs studying local anaesthetics or regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery. Data from a total of 1090 patients with outcomes at six months and of 441 patients with outcomes at 12 months were presented. No study included children. We pooled data from 250 participants after thoracotomy, with outcomes at six months. Data favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of chronic pain at six months after thoracotomy with an OR of 0.33 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.56). We pooled two studies on paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery; the pooled data of 89 participants with outcomes at five to six months favoured paravertebral block with an OR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.94).The methodological quality of the included studies was intermediate. Adverse effects were not studied systematically and were reported sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered the assessment of effects, especially at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Epidural anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing chronic pain after thoracotomy in about one patient out of every four patients treated. Paravertebral block may reduce the risk of chronic pain after breast cancer surgery in about one out of every five women treated. Our conclusions are significantly weakened by performance bias, shortcomings in allocation concealment, considerable attrition and incomplete outcome data. We caution that our evidence synthesis is based on only a few, small studies. More studies with high methodological quality, addressing various types of surgery and different age groups, including children, are needed.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthetics, Local; Breast Neoplasms; Cesarean Section; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Laparotomy; Male; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracotomy
PubMed: 23076930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007105.pub2 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Apr 2023Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of oligoanalgesia in the prehospital setting. Current treatments include oral and parenteral opiates and sedative agents, however regional anesthesia techniques for pain relief may provide superior analgesia with lower risk of side effects during patient transportation. The fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is an inexpensive treatment which is performed with minimal additional equipment, ultimately making it suitable in prehospital settings.
PROBLEM
In adult patients sustaining proximal femoral fractures in the prehospital setting, what is the effect of the FICB on non-verbal pain scores (NVPS), patient satisfaction, success rate, and adverse events compared to traditional analgesic techniques?
METHODS
A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Database, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science indexes. Additionally, reference lists for potential review articles from the , the , the , , and the were reviewed. Databases and journals were searched during the period from January 1, 1980 through July 1, 2022. Each study was scrutinized for quality and validity and was assigned a level of evidence as per Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.
RESULTS
Five studies involving 340 patients were included (ie, two randomized control trials [RCTs], two observational studies, and one prospective observational study). Pain scores decreased after prehospital FICB across all included studies by a mean of 6.65 points (5.25 - 7.5) on the NVPS. Out of the total 257 FICBs conducted, there was a success rate of 230 (89.3%). Of these, only two serious adverse events were recorded, both of which related to local analgesia toxicity. Neither resulted in long-term sequelae and only one required treatment.
CONCLUSION
Use of FICBs results in a significant decrease in NVPS in the prehospital setting, and they are ultimately suitable as regional analgesic techniques for proximal femur fractures. It carries a low risk of adverse events and may be performed by health care practitioners of various backgrounds with suitable training. The results suggest that FICBs are more effective for pain management than parenteral or oral opiates and sedative agents alone and can be used as an appropriate adjunct to pain management.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nerve Block; Femoral Fractures; Proximal Femoral Fractures; Pain; Emergency Medical Services; Fascia; Opiate Alkaloids; Hip Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36912109
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23000298 -
Obesity Surgery Feb 2021Pain after bariatric surgery can prolong recovery. This patient group is highly susceptible to opioid-related side effects. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Appears to Be Effective and Safe as a Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Bariatric Surgery: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
PURPOSE
Pain after bariatric surgery can prolong recovery. This patient group is highly susceptible to opioid-related side effects. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines strongly recommend the administration of multimodal medications to reduce narcotic consumption. However, the role of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (USG-TAP) block in multimodal analgesia of weight loss surgeries remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed in four databases for studies published up to September 2019. We considered randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of perioperative USG-TAP block as a part of multimodal analgesia in patients with laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
RESULTS
Eight studies (525 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed lower pain scores with USG-TAP block at every evaluated time point and lower opioid requirement in the USG-TAP block group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 7.59 mg; 95% CI - 9.86, - 5.39; p < 0.001). Time to ambulate was shorter with USG-TAP block (WMD = - 2.22 h; 95% CI - 3.89, - 0.56; p = 0.009). This intervention also seemed to be safe: only three non-severe complications with USG-TAP block were reported in the included studies.
CONCLUSION
Our results may support the incorporation of USG-TAP block into multimodal analgesia regimens of ERAS protocols for bariatric surgery.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Bariatric Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33083978
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-04973-8 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Feb 2010The pain and disability of hip and knee osteoarthritis can be improved by exercise, but the best method of encouraging this is not known. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The pain and disability of hip and knee osteoarthritis can be improved by exercise, but the best method of encouraging this is not known.
AIM
To develop an evidence-based booklet for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, offering information and advice on maintaining activity.
DESIGN OF STUDY
Systematic review of reviews and guidelines, then focus groups.
SETTING
Four general practices in North East Wales.
METHOD
Evidence-based messages were developed from a systematic review, synthesised into patient-centred messages, and then incorporated into a narrative. A draft booklet was examined by three focus groups to improve the phrasing of its messages and discuss its usefulness. The final draft was examined in a fourth focus group.
RESULTS
Six evidence-based guidelines and 54 systematic reviews were identified. The focus groups found the draft booklet to be informative and easy to read. They reported a lack of clarity about the cause of osteoarthritis and were surprised that the pain could improve. The value of exercise and weight loss beliefs was accepted and reinforced, but there was a perceived contradiction about heavy physical work being causative, while moderate exercise was beneficial. There was a fear of dependency on analgesia and misinterpretation of the message on hyaluranon injections. The information on joint replacement empowered patients to discuss referral with their GP. The text was revised to accommodate these issues.
CONCLUSION
The booklet was readable, credible, and useful to end-users. A randomised controlled trial is planned, to test whether the booklet influences beliefs about osteoarthritis and exercise.
Topics: Aged; Evidence-Based Medicine; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pamphlets; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Satisfaction; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 20132695
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X483166 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.
RESULTS
A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).
CONCLUSION
DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.
PubMed: 34933035
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.12.002 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Aug 2021To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020163473). Two authors independently searched four electronic databases from their inception to December 31, 2019. Randomized and non-randomized controlled hand OA trials were included if pain intensity was assessed using a validated scale. We allocated control groups into one of the following: placebo, add-on treatment, no treatment, or active treatment. The standardized mean differences (d) of pain, as well as subjective function and hand strength, were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 90% prediction intervals using random-effects models. Meta-regression and post-hoc subgroup analyses were performed to investigate which factors potentially impacted placebo analgesia and between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirty-one placebo, 11 add-on, 12 no-treatment, and 10 active-treatment controls were included in meta-analyses. Effective pain relief was observed in placebo (d = -0.50, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37), add-on (d = -0.35, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12), and active-treatment (d = -0.92, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.48) groups. In subjective function, these treatments had smaller but beneficial effects; hand strength, contrastingly, was not improved. Placebo effects were larger when flare designs were used (d = -0.96) and more homogeneous when minimum pain thresholds were set (d = -0.46, 90% prediction intervals -0.79 to -0.14).
CONCLUSION
Placebo, add-on, and active control treatments were more effective than the no treatment control in relieving hand pain and improving subjective function. By choosing minimum pain thresholds and flare requirements at patient enrollment, moderate pain relief may be replicated among control participants in future randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Control Groups; Hand; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34146952
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has emerged as an alternative method of achieving quicker drug delivery without adding to the distress of a child by inserting an intravenous cannula.
OBJECTIVES
We identified and evaluated all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials to assess the effects of intranasal fentanyl (INF) versus alternative analgesic interventions in children with acute pain, with respect to reduction in pain score, occurrence of adverse events, patient tolerability, use of "rescue analgesia," patient/parental satisfaction and patient mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); EMBASE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO Host, from 1995 to January 2014); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (BIREME, from 1995 to January 2014); Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts (from 1995 to January 2014); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (from 1995 to January 2014); BIOSIS Previews (from 1995 to January 2014); the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from 1995 to January 2014); International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (from 1995 to January 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1995 to January 2014); and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (to January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing INF versus any other pharmacological/non-pharmacological intervention for the treatment of children in acute pain (aged < 18 years).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors assessed each title and abstract for relevance. Full copies of all studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further assessment. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to measure effect sizes. Two review authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the tool of The Cochrane Collaboration to assess risk of bias, as per Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies (313 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study compared INF versus intramuscular morphine (IMM); another study compared INF versus intravenous morphine (IVM); and another study compared standard concentration INF (SINF) versus high concentration INF (HINF). All three studies reported a reduction in pain score following INF administration. INF produced a greater reduction in pain score at 10 minutes post administration when compared with IMM (INF group pain score: 1/5 vs IMM group pain score: 2/5; P value 0.014). No other statistically significant differences in pain scores were reported at any other time point. When INF was compared with IVM and HINF, no statistically significant differences in pain scores were noted between treatment arms, before analgesia or at 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes post analgesia. Specifically, when INF was compared with IVM, both agents were seen to produce a statistically significant reduction in pain score up to 20 minutes post analgesia. No further reduction in pain score was noted after this time. When SINF was compared with HINF, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in pain scores over study time was observed (median decrease for both groups 40 mm, P value 0.000). No adverse events (e.g. opiate toxicity, death) were reported in any study following INF administration. One study described better patient tolerance to INF compared with IMM, which achieved statistical significance. The other studies described reports of a "bad taste" and vomiting with INF. Overall the risk of bias in all studies was considered low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
INF may be an effective analgesic for the treatment of patients with acute moderate to severe pain, and its administration appears to cause minimal distress to children. However, this review of published studies does not allow any definitive conclusions regarding whether INF is superior, non-inferior or equivalent to intramuscular or intravenous morphine. Limitations of this review include the following: few eligible studies for inclusion (three); no study examined the use of INF in children younger than three years of age; no study included children with pain from a "medical" cause (e.g. abdominal pain seen in appendicitis); and all eligible studies were conducted in Australia. Consequently, the findings may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings, to children younger than three years of age and to those with pain from a "medical" cause.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Intranasal; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Fentanyl; Humans; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25300594
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009942.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Morphine; Neoplasms; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27105021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub4 -
The Journal of Pain Feb 2016Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition that, when poorly controlled, can result in a number of significant negative consequences. The American Pain... (Review)
Review
Research Gaps in Practice Guidelines for Acute Postoperative Pain Management in Adults: Findings From a Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline.
UNLABELLED
Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition that, when poorly controlled, can result in a number of significant negative consequences. The American Pain Society commissioned an evidence-based guideline on the management of postoperative pain to promote evidence-based, safe, and effective perioperative pain management. An interdisciplinary panel developed 31 key questions and inclusion criteria to guide the evidence review. Investigators reviewed 6556 abstracts from multiple electronic databases up to November 2012, an updated evidence review to October 2014, and key references suggested by expert reviewers. More than 800 primary studies not included in a systematic review and 107 systematic reviews were included. Despite a large body of evidence, a number of critical research gaps were identified where only low-quality or insufficient evidence was found to help guide clinical practice recommendations. This report identifies evidence gaps including optimal methods and timing of perioperative patient education, nonpharmacological modalities, combinations of analgesic techniques, monitoring of patient response to treatment, techniques for neuraxial and regional analgesia, and organizational care delivery models. Recommendations to help guide the design of future perioperative studies are offered.
PERSPECTIVE
Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition requiring an evidence-based, planned, and multimodal approach. Despite the plethora of published evidence, much of it is weak and key questions remain unanswered. Researchers are encouraged to work together to produce strong evidence to help guide clinical decisions in perioperative pain management.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 26719073
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.10.023