-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and venepunctures comprise 8% to 13% of the invasive procedures performed on ill infants. Analgesics are rarely given specifically for blood sampling procedures, but 5% to 19% of infants receive analgesia for other indications.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce pain-related distress and morbidity during venepuncture in preterm or term babies aged under 12 months in a neonatal unit? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (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 20 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 effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: oral sweet solutions; pacifiers; and topical anaesthetics (lidocaine-prilocaine cream, tetracaine).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Blood Specimen Collection; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phlebotomy; Punctures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 21463539
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Nov 2022Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure,... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Emla (Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics) and Let (Lidocaine, Epinephrine, Tetracaine) for Topical Use in Wound Management for Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure, which may result in one of the most unpleasant and painful childhood experiences. The pain can be minimized through topical anesthesia, such as a combination of lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine (LET) and a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). The current study was carried out to demonstrate the efficacy of EMLA and LET in pediatric wound management. A thorough literature search was carried out without any time limitation on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant studies from these databases and their references were scoured for additional studies. Study quality appraisal and data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). The literature search yielded 1651 articles of which only eight were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A meta-analysis of results from 3 studies showed that LET had a significant pain reduction than the control interventions (SMD: -0.46; 95% CI: -0.69, -0.23: p<0.0001). However, the pooled effect size of data from 3 studies showed EMLA had an insignificant difference with the control interventions (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.82, -0.24: p = 0.13). Similarly, no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions was reported in either EMLA (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.67, 7.93; p = 0.18) or LET (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.15, 6.50; p = 0.99) Our study suggests that the topical application of EMLA and LET effectively offers pain-free wound management among pediatric patients. However, the interventions are subject to adverse reactions that should be considered when managing the wounds.
PubMed: 36523723
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31447 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2021Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding... (Review)
Review
Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding of pain mechanisms in newborns, and analgesia has become a fundamental part of neonatal care. MC is still often performed with inappropriate analgesic methods, and there is still great variability among the various centers about surgical and anesthethic techniques to do it. The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings in the literature about pain management and analgesia during newborn MC. We performed a systematic review of neonatal MC studies published in the last 20 years. The most effective technique appeared to be the combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of analgesia.Conclusion: Combining local anesthesia with non-pharmacological analgesic strategies appears to be effective preventing procedural pain during MC. However, a standardized protocol for analgesia during MC is yet to be determined. Sensorial saturation appeared to help when used in conjunction with the local anesthesia techniques. What is Known: • Male circumcision is a painful procedure and it is frequently performed with inappropriate analgesic methods. • A gold standard practice in analgesia during male circumcision is still lacking and there is a great variability in the modus operandi between centers. What is New: • The combination of RB + EMLA + sucrose appears to be an analgesic strategy superior to other approaches. • We advocate for the integration of sensorial saturation during male circumcision in order to improve the efficacy of current analgesic practices.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Pain; Prilocaine
PubMed: 32748017
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-020-03758-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004Circumcision is a painful procedure that many newborn males undergo in the first few days after birth. Interventions are available to reduce pain at circumcision;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Circumcision is a painful procedure that many newborn males undergo in the first few days after birth. Interventions are available to reduce pain at circumcision; however, many newborns are circumcised without pain management.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for reducing pain at neonatal circumcision.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - 2004 week 19), CINAHL (1982 - May week 1 2004), Dissertation Abstracts (1986 - May 2004), Proceedings of the World Congress on Pain (1993 - 1999), and reference lists of articles. Language restrictions were not imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing pain interventions with placebo or no treatment or comparing two active pain interventions in male term or preterm infants undergoing circumcision.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Ten authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was obtained from the trial reports. For meta-analysis, data on a continuous scale were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or, when the units were not compatible, as standardized mean difference.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-five trials involving 1,984 newborns were included. Thirty-three trials enrolled healthy, full term neonates, and two enrolled infants born preterm. Fourteen trials involving 592 newborns compared dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) with placebo or no treatment. Compared to placebo/no treatment, DPNB demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -35 bpm, 95% CI -41 to -30], decreased time crying [WMD -54 %, 95% CI -64 to -44], and increased oxygen saturation [WMD 3.2 %, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.7]. Six trials involving 190 newborns compared eutectic mixture of analgesics (EMLA) with placebo. EMLA demonstrated significantly lower facial action scores [WMD -46.5, 95% CI -80.4 to -12.6], decreased time crying [WMD - 15.8 %, 95% CI -20.8 to -6.8] and lower heart rate [WMD -15 bpm, 95% CI -19 to -10]. DPNB, compared with EMLA in four trials involving 164 newborns, demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -17 bpm, 95% CI -23 to -11] and pain scores. When compared with sucrose in two trials involving 126 newborns, DPNB demonstrated less time crying [MD -166 s, 95% CI -211 to -121], and lower heart rate [WMD -27 bpm, 95% CI -33 to -20]. Results obtained for trials comparing oral sucrose and oral analgesics to placebo, and trials of environmental modification were either inconsistent or were not significantly different. Adverse effects included gagging, choking, and emesis in placebo/untreated groups. Minor bleeding, swelling and hematoma were reported with DPNB. Erythema and mild skin pallor were observed with the use of EMLA. Methaemoglobin levels were evaluated in two trials of EMLA, and results were within normal limits.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
DPNB was the most frequently studied intervention and was the most effective for circumcision pain. Compared to placebo, EMLA was also effective, but was not as effective as DPNB. Both interventions appear to be safe for use in newborns. None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Nerve Block; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15495086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004217.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth process consists of assisted vaginal birth by vacuum extraction or by forceps and during blood sampling for newborn screening tests.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of procedural/postoperative pain or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates. To review the effects of various doses and routes of administration (enteral, intravenous or rectal) of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 9 May 2016), Embase (1980 to 9 May 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 9 May 2016). We searched clinical trials' databases, Google Scholar, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of paracetamol for the prevention/treatment of pain in neonates (≤ 28 days of age).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the articles using pre-designed forms. We used this form to decide trial inclusion/exclusion, to extract data from eligible trials and to request additional published information from authors of the original reports. We entered and cross-checked data using RevMan 5 software. When noted, we resolved differences by mutual discussion and consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with low risk of bias, which assessed paracetamol for the treatment of pain in 728 infants. Painful procedures studied included heel lance, assisted vaginal birth, eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity assessment and postoperative care. Results of individual studies could not be combined in meta-analyses as the painful conditions, the use of paracetamol and comparison interventions and the outcome measures differed. Paracetamol compared with water, cherry elixir or EMLA cream (eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) did not significantly reduce pain following heel lance. The Premature Infant Pain Profile score (PIPP) within three minutes following lancing was higher in the paracetamol group than in the oral glucose group (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.70; one study, 38 infants). Paracetamol did not reduce "modified facies scores" after assisted vaginal birth (one study, 119 infants). In another study (n = 123), the Échelle de Douleur et d'Inconfort du Nouveau-Né score at two hours of age was significantly higher in the group that received paracetamol suppositories than in the placebo suppositories group (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). In that study, when infants were subjected to a heel lance at two to three days of age, Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates scores were higher in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group, and infants spent a longer time crying (MD 19 seconds, 95% CI 14 to 24). For eye examinations, no significant reduction in PIPP scores in the first or last 45 seconds of eye examination was reported, nor at five minutes after the eye examination. In one study (n = 81), the PIPP score was significantly higher in the paracetamol group than in the 24% sucrose group (MD 3.90, 95% CI 2.92 to 4.88). In one study (n = 114) the PIPP score during eye examination was significantly lower in the paracetamol group than in the water group (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 1.85). For postoperative care following major surgery, the total amount of morphine (µg/kg) administered over 48 hours was significantly less among infants assigned to the paracetamol group than to the morphine group (MD -157 µg/kg, 95% CI -27 to -288). No adverse events were noted in any study. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The paucity and low quality of existing data do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the role of paracetamol in reducing the effects of painful procedures in neonates. Paracetamol given after assisted vaginal birth may increase the response to later painful exposures. Paracetamol may reduce the total need for morphine following major surgery, and for this aspect of paracetamol use, further research is needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Delivery, Obstetric; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinopathy of Prematurity
PubMed: 27716943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011219.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.
OBJECTIVES
To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Intrauterine Devices; Lidocaine; Misoprostol; Naproxen; Oxytocics; Pain; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26222246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1% of people at some time in their lives and are often painful. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. Topical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1% of people at some time in their lives and are often painful. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. Topical treatments to reduce pain during and between dressing changes are sometimes used.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For this third update the following databases were searched: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 May 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (2009 to April Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 08, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2009 to 2012 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (2009 to May 2 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical agents or dressing for the treatment of pain in venous ulcers were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials (343 participants) evaluated Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA): lidocaine-prilocaine cream for the pain associated with ulcer debridement. The between-group difference in pain measured on a 100 mm scale was statistically significant in favour of EMLA (MD -20.65, 95% CI -12.19 to -29.11). No significant between-group differences in burning or itching were observed.Two trials (470 participants with venous leg ulcers) evaluated ibuprofen slow-release foam dressings for persistent venous leg ulcer pain. Compared with local best practice, significantly more participants in the ibuprofen dressing group achieved the outcome of >50% of the total maximum pain relief score between day 1 and day 5 than participants in the local best practice group (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.15). The number needed to treat was 6 (95% CI 4 to 12). In the second trial, compared with an identical non-ibuprofen foam dressing, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing slight to complete pain relief on the first evening of treatment.Limited data were available to assess healing rates or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest that ibuprofen dressings may offer pain relief to people with painful venous leg ulcers. EMLA (5%) appears to provide effective pain relief during the debridement of venous leg ulcers. Further research should consider standardised pain assessment methods and assess both the effect on ulcer healing and the impact of long term use of these treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Bandages; Debridement; Humans; Ibuprofen; Leg Ulcer; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Ointments; Pain; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Varicose Ulcer
PubMed: 23152206
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001177.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and include sucking, skin-to-skin contact, warmth, rocking, sound and smell of the mother, and possibly endogenous opiates present in the breast milk.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of breastfeeding on procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) up to one year of age compared to no intervention, placebo, parental holding, skin-to-skin contact, expressed breast milk, formula milk, bottle feeding, sweet-tasting solutions (e.g. sucrose or glucose), distraction, or other interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 18 February 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and CINAHL (EBSCO); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving infants aged 28 days postnatal to 12 months and receiving breastfeeding while undergoing a painful procedure. Comparators included, but were not limited to, oral administration of water, sweet-tasting solutions, expressed breast or formula milk, no intervention, use of pacifiers, positioning, cuddling, distraction, topical anaesthetics, and skin-to-skin care. Procedures included, but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, venipuncture, intravenous line insertion, heel lance, and finger lance. We applied no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The main outcome measures were behavioural or physiological indicators and composite pain scores, as well as other clinically important outcomes reported by the authors of included studies. We pooled data for the most comparable outcomes and where data from at least two studies could be included. We used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), employing a random-effects model for continuous outcomes measured on the same scales. For continuous outcomes measured on different scales, we pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to pool events between groups across studies using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. However, as insufficient studies reported dichotomous outcomes, we did not pool such events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies with a total of 1066 infants. All studies were conducted during early childhood immunisation. As the breastfeeding intervention cannot be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We assessed nine studies as being at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. In addition, we rated nine studies as high risk for blinding of outcome assessment. We scored risk of bias related to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting as unclear for the majority of the studies due to lack of information.Our primary outcome was pain. Breastfeeding reduced behavioural pain responses (cry time and pain scores) during vaccination compared to no treatment, oral water, and other interventions such as cuddling, oral glucose, topical anaesthetic, massage, and vapocoolant. Breastfeeding did not consistently reduce changes in physiological indicators, such as heart rate. We pooled data for duration of cry from six studies (n = 547 infants). Breastfeeding compared to water or no treatment resulted in a 38-second reduction in cry time (MD -38, 95% CI -50 to -26; P < 0.00001). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE for this outcome was moderate, as most infants were 6 months or younger, and outcomes may be different for infants during their 12-month immunisation. We pooled data for pain scores from five studies (n = 310 infants). Breastfeeding was associated with a 1.7-point reduction in standardised pain scores (SMD -1.7, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.3); we considered this evidence to be of moderate quality as data were primarily from infants younger than 6 months of age. We could pool heart rate data following injections for only two studies (n = 186); we considered this evidence to be of low quality due to insufficient data. There were no differences between breastfeeding and control (MD -3.6, -23 to 16).Four of the 10 studies had more than two study arms. Breastfeeding was more effective in reducing crying duration or pain scores during vaccination compared to: 25% dextrose and topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA), vapocoolant, maternal cuddling, and massage.No included studies reported adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude, based on the 10 studies included in this review, that breastfeeding may help reduce pain during vaccination for infants beyond the neonatal period. Breastfeeding consistently reduced behavioural responses of cry duration and composite pain scores during and following vaccinations. However, there was no evidence that breastfeeding had an effect on physiological responses. No studies included in this review involved populations of hospitalised infants undergoing other skin-breaking procedures. Although it may be possible to extrapolate the review results to this population, further studies of efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability in this population are warranted.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Breast Feeding; Crying; Female; Glucose; Heart Rate; Humans; Infant; Infant Care; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Massage; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vaccination
PubMed: 27792244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011248.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1-21 heel punctures or venepunctures per day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61-87% and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1-21 heel punctures or venepunctures per day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61-87% and venepunctures comprise 8-13% of the invasive procedures performed on ill infants. Analgesics are rarely given specifically for blood sampling procedures, but 5-19% of infants receive analgesia for other indications.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce pain-related distress and morbidity during venepuncture in preterm or term babies aged under 12 months in a neonatal unit? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (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 16 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 effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: oral sweet solutions, pacifiers, and topical anaesthetics (lidocaine-prilocaine cream, tetracaine).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Blood Specimen Collection; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phlebotomy; Punctures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 19445777
DOI: No ID Found