Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
6 References (6 articles) Revert Studify

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Preemptive use of anti-inflammatories and analgesics in oral surgery: a review of systematic reviews.

Zeitung Frontiers in pharmacology
Year 2023
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Dieser Artikel enthält 19 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (19 references)

Loading references information
<ovid:b>Objectives:</ovid:b> This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. <ovid:b>Materials and methods:</ovid:b> The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. <ovid:br/><ovid:b>Results:</ovid:b> All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure (<ovid:i>n</ovid:i> = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach (<ovid:i>n</ovid:i> = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. <ovid:b>Conclusion: </ovid:b> Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used.<ovid:br/><ovid:br/> Copyright &#xa9; 2024 Pimenta, Takahashi, Barberato-Filho, McClung, Moraes, de Souza and Bergamaschi.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms.

Zeitung Canadian Family Physician
Year 2018
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

Dieser Artikel enthält 26 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (26 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included. For adverse events, any meta-analysis for the conditions listed or of adverse events of cannabinoids was included. SYNTHESIS: From 1085 articles, 31 relevant systematic reviews were identified including 23 for pain, 5 for spasticity, 6 for nausea and vomiting, and 12 for adverse events. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs found more patients taking cannabinoids attained at least a 30% pain reduction: risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.64), number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Sensitivity analysis found study size and duration affected findings (subgroup differences, CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that cannabinoids improve nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. They might improve spasticity (primarily in multiple sclerosis). There is some uncertainty about whether cannabinoids improve pain, but if they do, it is neuropathic pain and the benefit is likely small. Adverse effects are very common, meaning benefits would need to be considerable to warrant trials of therapy.

Broad synthesis / Scoping review

Unclassified

Cannabinoids in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Critical Review of the Evidence.

Zeitung JBJS reviews
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

Dieser Artikel enthält 21 Primary studies Primary studies (21 references) 12 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (12 references)

Loading references information

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

Zeitung Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Dieser Artikel enthält 9 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain. METHODS: We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions. We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations. The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Zeitung Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Dieser Artikel enthält 37 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (37 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. MAIN RESULTS: The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Adverse effects of perioperative paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, gabapentinoids and their combinations: a topical review.

Zeitung Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

Dieser Artikel enthält 33 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (33 references) 12 Primary studies Primary studies (12 references)

Loading references information
Post-operative pain affects millions of patients worldwide and the post-operative period has high rates of morbidity and mortality. Some of this morbidity may be related to analgesics. The aim of this review was to provide an update of current knowledge of adverse events (AE) associated with the most common perioperative non-opioid analgesics: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GCCs), gabapentinoids and their combinations. The review is based on data from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of analgesic efficacy and/or adverse effects of perioperative non-opioid analgesics, and randomised trials and cohort/retrospective studies. Generally, data on AE are sparse and related to the immediate post-operative period. For paracetamol, the incidence of AEs appears trivial. Data are inconclusive regarding an association of NSAIDs with mortality, cardiovascular events, surgical bleeding and renal impairment. Anastomotic leakage may be associated with NSAID usage. No firm evidence exists for an association of NSAIDs with impaired bone healing. Single-dose GCCs were not significantly related to increased infection rates or delayed wound healing. Gabapentinoid treatment was associated with increased sedation, dizziness and visual disturbances, but the clinical relevance needs clarification. Importantly, data on AEs of combinations of the above analgesics are sparse and inconclusive. Despite the potential adverse events associated with the most commonly applied non-opioid analgesics, including their combinations, reporting of such events is sparse and confined to the immediate perioperative period. Knowledge of benefit and harm related to multimodal pain treatment is deficient and needs clarification in large trials with prolonged observation.