0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics for pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      , , , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I 2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I 2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I 2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient’s need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.

          To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles. Full-length randomized trials. Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale. Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially. Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of Guidelines for Surgical Management of Urolithiasis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis today.

              The epidemiology of nephrolithiasis differs according to geographical area and socio-economic conditions. In Italy the prevalence of the disease in 1993 was 17.2/1,000 inhabitants, most patients are men and elderly. The relative risk increased in subjects with family history for calculosis, with the tendency to eat protein-rich food and with overweight and body mass index (MBI) >32 kg/m2. Calcium oxalate and/or phosphate stones account for almost 70% of all renal stones observed in economically developed countries. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Supervision
                Role: Visualization
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                5 October 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 10
                : e0237783
                Affiliations
                [001]Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
                University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1380-5065
                Article
                PONE-D-20-08941
                10.1371/journal.pone.0237783
                7535034
                33017397
                00c1c4b1-ffe4-4f59-bcae-df8b314369ca
                © 2020 Wang et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 31 March 2020
                : 3 August 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013365, West China Hospital, Sichuan University;
                Award ID: 1.3.5 project (ZY2016104)
                Award Recipient :
                This study was funded by the 1.3.5 project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, in the form of a grant awarded to JW (ZY2016104). The funder supervised the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Pain
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Analgesics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pain Management
                Analgesics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Physical Sciences
                Materials Science
                Metallurgy
                Eutectics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmaceutics
                Drug Therapy
                Analgesia
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Custom metadata
                All data used in this study are publicly accessible on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and the Cochrane library database via the DOIs included in the ‘References’ section of the paper.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article