In the pediatric population, pain is frequently under-recognized and inadequately treated. Improved education and training of health care providers can positively impact the management of pain in children. The purpose of this review is to provide a practical clinical approach to the management of acute pain in the pediatric inpatient population. This will include an overview of commonly used pain management modalities and their potential pitfalls. For institutions that have a pediatric acute pain service or are considering initiating one, it is our hope to provide a useful tool to aid clinicians in the safe and effective treatment of pain in children. Keywords Pediatric acute pain • Pain assessment • Acute pain service • Opioid • Multimodal management Approach to pain Effective pain management is ideally practiced in a multidisciplinary model focusing on patient-centered care. The World Health Organization (WHO) [1] analgesic ladder provides a strong foundation for the treatment of pain that can be built upon to reflect more modern thinking and techniques around pain management (Fig. 1). Some of these modifications are presented in an updated WHO ladder with guiding principles on post-operative management of acute pain [2], which advocates 5 recommendations for the correct use of analgesics: (1) use the oral form of medication whenever possible, (2) analgesics should be given at regular intervals, (3) analgesics should be administered based on the severity of pain assessed using a pain intensity scale, (4) medication dosing should be tailored to the individual patient, and (5) attention to detail should be maintained throughout the prescription of pain medications. The acute pain service The acute pain service (APS) is a specialized, multidisciplinary inpatient team consulted to assist with management of severe pain. Within our institution, this team consists of a pediatric anesthesiologist, pediatric anesthesia fellow, clinical nurse specialist, and pediatric psychiatrist. The APS works in collaboration with the patient's primary care team, bedside nurse, family, and pharmacists to provide a patient-centered multi-modal pain plan. Generally, the APS is consulted to assist in pain management when either a patient's analgesic needs have grown beyond standard opioid dosing (Table 1) that their primary service is comfortable prescribing, or there is anticipated need for APS involvement for postoperative patients. Postoperative patients who automatically require APS management in our institution include those with an indwelling regional or neuraxial block catheter, patients who have received a single-shot peripheral nerve block, patients with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) technique, or patients receiving a Ketamine infusion.

Despite trial registration being an accepted best practice, RCTs published in anesthesiology journals have a high rate of inadequate registration. While mandating trial registration has increased the proportion of adequately registered trials over time, there is still an unacceptably high proportion of inadequately registered RCTs. Among adequately registered trials, there are high rates of discrepancies between registered and reported outcomes, suggesting a need to compare a published RCT with its trial registry entry to be able to fully assess the quality of the study. If clinicians base their decisions on evidence distorted by primary outcome switching, patient care could be negatively affected.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected anesthetic care worldwide, including the provision of anesthesia for pediatric patients. Hospitals have balanced the risks associated with the potential surges of resource-intensive COVID-19 patients against the probable morbidity of delaying elective surgical procedures. These decisions are complicated by the unclear influence that COVID-19 has on the perioperative risk for disease-positive pediatric patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE for publications involving pediatric patients with COVID-19 who underwent general anesthesia. A total of eight publications met inclusion criteria, and together described 20 patients. Nine patients had documented preoperative COVID-19 symptoms and one perioperative death was reported. Overall, further studies are needed to increase patient numbers and properly assess the perioperative risk. As we continue to provide care without clear guiding data, we present a discussion of modified anesthetic techniques for pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

This cross-sectional study evaluates changes in reporting practices for race, sex, and socioeconomic status in randomized clinical trials in 2015 vs 2019.

BACKGROUND: Twitter is a web-based social media platform that allows instantaneous sharing of user-generated messages (tweets). We performed an infodemiology study of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Twitter conversation related to anesthesiology to describe how Twitter has been used during the pandemic and ways to optimize Twitter use by anesthesiologists. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of tweets related to the specialty of anesthesiology and COVID-19 tweeted between January 21 and October 13, 2020. A publicly available COVID-19 Twitter dataset was filtered for tweets meeting inclusion criteria (tweets including anesthesiology keywords). Using descriptive statistics, tweets were reviewed for tweet and account characteristics. Tweets were filtered for specific topics of interest likely to be impactful or informative to anesthesiologists of COVID-19 practice (airway management, personal protective equipment, ventilators, COVID testing, and pain management). Tweet activity was also summarized descriptively to show temporal profiles over the pandemic. RESULTS: Between January 21 and October 13, 2020, 23,270 of 241,732,881 tweets (0.01%) met inclusion criteria and were generated by 15,770 accounts. The majority (51.9%) of accounts were from the United States. Seven hundred forty-nine (4.8%) of all users self-reported as anesthesiologists. 33.8% of all tweets included at least one word or phrase preceded by the # symbol (hashtag), which functions as a label to search for all tweets including a specific hashtag, with the most frequently used being #anesthesia. About half (52.2%) of all tweets included at least one hyperlink, most frequently linked to other social media, news organizations, medical organizations, or scientific publications. The majority of tweets (67%) were not retweeted. COVID-19 anesthesia tweet activity started before the pandemic was declared. The trend of daily tweet activity was similar to, and preceded, the US daily death count by about 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The toll of the pandemic has been reflected in the anesthesiology conversation on Twitter, representing 0.01% of all COVID-19 tweets. Daily tweet activity showed how the Twitter community used the platform to learn about important topics impacting anesthesiology practice during a global pandemic. Twitter is a relevant platform through which to communicate about anesthesiology topics, but further research is required to delineate its effectiveness, benefits, and limitations for anesthesiology discussions.

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02400892). Registered 27 March 2015.

Twitter is a social media platform that has been encouraged for use among anesthesiologists as a way to stimulate conversation, distribute research, enhance conference experiences, and expand journal club sessions. We aimed to establish the typical baseline use of hashtags that are not related to events such as conferences. Systematic searches were performed on Twitter, as well as through hashtag-tracking services, to identify actively used anesthesia-related hashtags. The most frequently used general anesthesia hashtags were #anesthesia and #anaesthesia. The most popular and relevant hashtags within anesthesia subspecialties or interest groups include #pedsanes, #anesJC, #OBanes, #intubation, #regionalanesthesia, #neuroanesthesia, and #cardiacanesthesia. We have identified the most popular anesthesia-related hashtags on Twitter to help anesthesiologists increase the reach and degree of discussions in anesthesia-related social media or twitter verse.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has yielded an unprecedented quantity of new publications, contributing to an overwhelming quantity of information and leading to the rapid dissemination of less stringently validated information. Yet, a formal analysis of how the medical literature has changed during the pandemic is lacking. In this analysis, we aimed to quantify how scientific publications changed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric study of published studies in four high-impact medical journals to identify differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 related publications compared to non-pandemic studies. Original investigations related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 published in March and April 2020 were identified and compared to non-COVID-19 research publications over the same two-month period in 2019 and 2020. Extracted data included publication characteristics, study characteristics, author characteristics, and impact metrics. Our primary measure was principal component analysis (PCA) of publication characteristics and impact metrics across groups. Results We identified 402 publications that met inclusion criteria: 76 were related to COVID-19; 154 and 172 were non-COVID publications over the same period in 2020 and 2019, respectively. PCA utilizing the collected bibliometric data revealed segregation of the COVID-19 literature subset from both groups of non-COVID literature (2019 and 2020). COVID-19 publications were more likely to describe prospective observational (31.6%) or case series (41.8%) studies without industry funding as compared with non-COVID articles, which were represented primarily by randomized controlled trials (32.5% and 36.6% in the non-COVID literature from 2020 and 2019, respectively). Conclusions In this cross-sectional study of publications in four general medical journals, COVID-related articles were significantly different from non-COVID articles based on article characteristics and impact metrics. COVID-related studies were generally shorter articles reporting observational studies with less literature cited and fewer study sites, suggestive of more limited scientific support. They nevertheless had much higher dissemination.