Dataset Information

Pain Management in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

SUBMITTER: Cai W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718672 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ?4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094412.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundChronic painful conditions have an important influence on the ability to work. Work-related outcomes, however, are not commonly reported in publications on trials investigating the treatment of chronic painful conditions. We aim to provide an overview of the reporting of work-related outcomes in such trials and investigate the relationship between work-related outcomes and pain outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed with the aim of identifying randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating treatments for chronic painful conditions or rheumatic diseases that also reported on work-related outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed with the Oxford Quality Scale (OQS). Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes of interference with work and number of patients with at least 30% reduction in pain intensity (30% pain responders). The correlation between work-related and pain outcomes was investigated with regression analyses.ResultsWe included 31 publications reporting on 27 datasets from randomised placebo-controlled trials (with a total of 11,434 study participants) conducted in chronic painful or rheumatic diseases and reporting on work-related outcomes. These 31 publications make up only about 0.2% of all publications on randomised placebo-controlled trials in such conditions. The methodological quality of the included studies was high; only nine studies scored less than four (out of a maximum five) points on the OQS. Sixteen different work-related outcomes were reported on in the studies. Of 25 studies testing for the statistical significance of changes in work-related outcomes over the course of the trials, 14 (56%) reported a significant improvement; the others reported non-significant changes. Eight studies reported data on both interference with work and 30% pain responders: meta-analyses demonstrated similar, statistically significant improvements in both these outcomes with active therapy compared to placebo and regression analysis showed that these outcomes were correlated.ConclusionsDespite the importance of pain as a reason for decreased ability to work, work-related outcomes are reported in substantially less than 1% of publications on placebo-controlled trials in chronic painful and rheumatic diseases. Work-related outcomes and pain responder outcomes are closely related.

Project description:MethodsPubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched. The primary outcome was treatment response. The secondary outcomes included changes in clinical and laboratory indicators and incidence of AP-related complications. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effect model. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated.ResultsOverall, 23 RCTs were included. The rates of overall (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.20; P < 0.00001) and complete (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.50; P < 0.00001) responses were significantly higher in the Xuebijing injection group. After treatment, the levels of interleukin-6 (WMD = -18.22; 95% CI = -23.36 to -13.08; P < 0.00001), tumor necrosis factor-α (WMD = -16.44; 95% CI = -20.49 to -12.40; P < 0.00001), serum amylase (WMD = -105.61; 95% CI = -173.77 to -37.46; P=0.002), white blood cell (WMD = -1.51; 95% CI = -1.66 to -1.36; P < 0.00001), and C-reactive protein (WMD = -11.05; 95% CI = -14.32 to -7.78; P < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the Xuebijing injection group. Abdominal pain (WMD = -1.74; 95% CI = -1.96 to -1.52; P < 0.00001), abdominal distension (WMD = -1.56; 95% CI = -2.07 to -1.04; P < 0.00001), gastrointestinal function (WMD = -2.60; 95% CI = -3.07 to -2.13; P < 0.00001), body temperature (WMD = -2.16; 95% CI = -2.83 to -1.49; P < 0.00001), serum amylase level (WMD = -1.81; 95% CI = -2.66 to -0.96; P < 0.0001), and white blood cell (WMD = -2.16; 95% CI = -2.99 to -1.32; P < 0.00001) recovered more rapidly in the Xuebijing injection group. The incidence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (RR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.62; P=0.006), pancreatic pseudocyst (RR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.77; P=0.02), and renal failure (RR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.60; P=0.006) was significantly lower in the Xuebijing injection group.ConclusionsXuebijing injection added on the basis of conventional treatment has a potential benefit for improving the outcomes of AP.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of conservative management (except drug therapy) for acute Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD) II.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) using a pre-defined protocol. Two independent reviewers searched information sources, decided eligibility of studies, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) of included trials. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. A third reviewer mediated any disagreements throughout. Qualitative trial and RoB data were summarised descriptively. Quantitative syntheses were conducted across trials for comparable interventions, outcome measures and assessment points. Meta-analyses compared effect sizes with random effects, using STATA version 12.Data sourcesPEDro, Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library with manual searching in key journals, reference lists, British National Bibliography for Report Literature, Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information & Exchange, and National Technical Information Service were searched from inception to 15th April 2015. Active researchers in the field were contacted to determine relevant studies.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs evaluating acute (<4 weeks) WADII, any conservative intervention, with outcome measures important to the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health.ResultsFifteen RCTs all assessed as high RoB (n=1676 participants) across 9 countries were included. Meta-analyses enabled 4 intervention comparisons: conservative versus standard/control, active versus passive, behavioural versus standard/control, and early versus late. Conservative intervention was more effective for pain reduction at 6 months (95%CI: -20.14 to -3.38) and 1-3 years (-25.44 to -3.19), and improvement in cervical mobility in the horizontal plane at <3 months (0.43 to 5.60) compared with standard/control intervention. Active intervention was effective for pain alleviation at 6 months (-17.19 to -3.23) and 1-3 years (-26.39 to -10.08) compared with passive intervention. Behavioural intervention was more effective than standard/control intervention for pain reduction at 6 months (-15.37 to -1.55), and improvement in cervical movement in the coronal (0.93 to 4.38) and horizontal planes at 3-6 months (0.43 to 5.46). For early (<4 days) versus late (>10 days) interventions, there were no statistically significant differences in all outcome measures between interventions at any time.ConclusionsConservative and active interventions may be useful for pain reduction in patients with acute WADII. Additionally, cervical horizontal mobility could be improved by conservative intervention. The employment of a behavioural intervention (e.g. act-as-usual, education and self-care including regularly exercise) could have benefits for pain reduction and improvement in cervical movement in the coronal and horizontal planes. The evidence was evaluated as low/very low level according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Dataset Information

Pain Management in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets