No abstract

Background The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. Objective The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2. Results Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting. Conclusions There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

Background:The purpose of the present study was to systematically evaluate the completeness of trial registration and the extent of outcome-reporting bias in modern randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture.Methods:With use of 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro), this systematic review identified all RCTs of distal radial fracture treatment published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015. We independently determined the registration status of these trials in a public trial registry and compared the characteristics of registered and non-registered trials. We assessed the quality and consistency of primary outcome measure (POM) reporting between the registration data and the final published studies.Results:Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, only 28 (31%) were registered, and only 3 (3%) were “appropriately registered” (i.e., prospectively registered and identifying and fully describing the POM). Registered trials had larger sample sizes and were more likely to be multicenter, to report funding sources, and to be published in higher-impact-factor journals. Sixteen (18%) of the 90 registered RCTs named a POM in the registry; 7 (44%) of those 16 registered RCTs stated a different POM, an additional POM, or no POM at all in the final publication than was stated in the registry data. Additionally, 13 (81%) of those 16 registered RCTs had discrepancies in the time point reported for the POM.Conclusions:In an attempt to address publication and outcome-reporting bias, prospective trial registration in a public registry has been deemed a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2005. This study shows poor registration rates as well as inconsistencies in the reporting of POMs of recent trials relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture, one of the most common and most investigated injuries in orthopaedic practice.Clinical Relevance:The problems of registration and outcome-reporting bias in RCTs are important to highlight and address, and to find a solution will require the cooperation of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. Increasing the transparency and consistency of reporting will help to increase the quality of research, which can impact patient care through evidence-based guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract