10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Intravenous Amide Anesthetics to Treat Pain Associated with Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: a Systematic Review

      review-article

      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

          Introduction:

          Renal colic affects 12% of the U.S. population, accounting for nearly 1% of emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommendations advocate narcotic-limiting multimodal analgesia regimens. The objective of this review is to determine if in patients with renal colic (Population), intravenous (IV) amide anesthetics (Intervention) result in better pain control, lower requirements for rescue analgesia, or less adverse medication effects (outcome) compared to placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opiates (Comparisons).

          Methods:

          Scholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched using a pre-designed systematic review protocol and registered with PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized clinical trial (RCT), (2) age ≥ 18 years, (3) confirmed or presumed renal colic, (4) amide anesthetic administered IV. Eligible comparison groups included: placebo, conventional therapy, acetaminophen, NSAID, or opiate. The primary outcome was pain intensity at baseline, 30, 60, and 120 minutes. Trial quality was graded, and risk-of-bias was assessed.

          Results:

          Of the 3930 identified references, 4 RCTs (479 participants) were included. One trial (n=240) reported improved analgesia with IV lidocaine (Lido IV) plus metoclopramide, compared to morphine. All other trials reported unchanged or less analgesia compared to placebo, ketorolac, or fentanyl. Very severe heterogeneity (I 2= 88%) precluded pooling data.

          Conclusion:

          Current evidence precludes drawing a firm conclusion on the efficacy or superiority of Lido IV over traditional therapies for ED patients with renal colic. Evidence suggests Lido IV may be an effective non-opiate analgesic alliterative; however, it’s efficacy may not exceed that of NSAIDs or opiates. Further study is needed to validate the potential improved efficacy of Lido IV plus metoclopramide.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

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

          The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis.

          Calculations of the power of statistical tests are important in planning research studies (including meta-analyses) and in interpreting situations in which a result has not proven to be statistically significant. The authors describe procedures to compute statistical power of fixed- and random-effects tests of the mean effect size, tests for heterogeneity (or variation) of effect size parameters across studies, and tests for contrasts among effect sizes of different studies. Examples are given using 2 published meta-analyses. The examples illustrate that statistical power is not always high in meta-analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Brief History of the Opioid Epidemic and Strategies for Pain Medicine

            The opioid epidemic has resulted from myriad causes and will not be solved by any simple solution. Consequent to a staggering increase in opioid-related deaths in the USA, various governmental inputs and stakeholder strategies have been proposed and implemented with varying success. This article summarizes the history of opioid use and explores the causes for the present day epidemic. Recent trends in opioid-related data demonstrate an almost fourfold increase in overdose deaths from 1999 to 2008. Tragically, opioids claimed over 64,000 lives just last year. Some solutions have undergone legislation, including the limitation of numbers of opioids postsurgery, as well as growing national prevalence of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols which focus on reduced postoperative opioid consumption and shortened hospital stays. Stricter prescribing practices and prescription monitoring programs have been instituted in the recent past. Improvement in abuse deterrent strategies which is a major focus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all opioid preparations will likely play an important role by increasing the safety of these medications. Future potential strategies such as additional legislative policies, public awareness, and physician education are also detailed in this review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

              Background The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials was introduced in 2008 and has frequently been commented on and used in systematic reviews. We wanted to evaluate the tool by reviewing published comments on its strengths and challenges and by describing and analysing how the tool is applied to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Methods A review of published comments (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Methodology Register and Google Scholar) and an observational study (100 Cochrane and 100 non-Cochrane reviews from 2014). Results Our review included 68 comments, 15 of which were categorised as major. The main strengths of the tool were considered to be its aim (to assess trial conduct and not reporting), its developmental basis (wide consultation, empirical and theoretical evidence) and its transparent procedures. The challenges of the tool were mainly considered to be its choice of core bias domains (e.g. not involving funding/conflicts of interest) and issues to do with implementation (i.e. modest inter-rater agreement) and terminology. Our observational study found that the tool was used in all Cochrane reviews (100/100) and was the preferred tool in non-Cochrane reviews (31/100). Both types of reviews frequently implemented the tool in non-recommended ways. Most Cochrane reviews planned to use risk of bias assessments as basis for sensitivity analyses (70 %), but only a minority conducted such analyses (19 %) because, in many cases, few trials were assessed as having “low” risk of bias for all standard domains (6 %). The judgement of at least one risk of bias domain as “unclear” was found in 89 % of included randomized clinical trials (1103/1242). Conclusions The Cochrane tool has become the standard approach to assess risk of bias in randomized clinical trials but is frequently implemented in a non-recommended way. Based on published comments and how it is applied in practice in systematic reviews, the tool may be further improved by a revised structure and more focused guidance. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arch Acad Emerg Med
                Arch Acad Emerg Med
                AAEM
                Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
                Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran )
                2645-4904
                2020
                18 March 2020
                : 8
                : 1
                : e27
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
                [2 ]The Morzak Collaborative, Greenville, NC, USA
                [3 ]East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
                [4 ]William E. Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
                [5 ]Emergency Medicine and Toxicology Department, Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, NC, USA
                [6 ]Trauma Research Center, Nursing Faculty, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
                [7 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding Author: Dr. Andrew C. Miller; Department of Emergency Medicine East Carolina University, Brody School of Medicine, 600 Moye Blvd, mailstop 625 Greenville, NC 27834. Phone: +1 (252) 744-5726, Fax: +1 (252) 744-5014, E-Mail: Taqwa1@gmail.com, E-Mail: MillerAndr17@ecu.edu
                Article
                aaem-8-e27
                7130443
                32259122
                7a8b530b-4bfd-4934-b38e-e1ab5f8d6435

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : January 2020
                : February 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                renal colic,kidney calculi,lidocaine,analgesia,emergency service,hospital

                Comments

                Comment on this article