Ketorolac for postoperative pain in children

McNicol, Ewan D; Rowe, Emily; Cooper, Tess E

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012294.pub2

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…DIC with several anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic properties is widely being used for the treatment of inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, [19,20] spondylitis ankylosing, [21] and post-operative [22,23] and post-chemoradiotherapy inflammations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ondansetron enhanced diclofenac‐induced nephrotoxicity in mice

Shakibaie

Forootanfar

Ghaseminejad

et al. 2019

J Biochem & Molecular Tox

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was performed to investigate the effect of ondansetron, a serotonin receptor (5‐HT3) antagonist, in the alleviation of diclofenac‐induced kidney injuries. NMRI mice were randomly divided into six groups and treated with (A) untreated control group, (B) diclofenac (100 mg/kg), (C) ondansetron (1 mg/kg), (D to F) ondansetron (0.1, 0.5, and 1 mg/kg, respectively) and diclofenac (100 mg/kg) for last 3 days of experiment. The oxidative stress tests strongly demonstrated the negative synergistic effects of diclofenac and ondansetron, regarding the observation of dose‐dependent enhancement of malondialdehyde concentration, and reduction of glutathione content, and superoxide dismutase and catalase activity. Histopathological analyses revealed dose‐dependent tubular epithelial cells degeneration, outstanding mononuclear cells infiltration, clear necrosis at the papillary region of kidney, dilation, and vascular hyperemia in mice kidney tissues treated with ondansetron and diclofenac. Conclusively, these findings suggested the possible ondansetron‐diclofenac interaction through the induction of oxidative stress.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ondansetron enhanced diclofenac‐induced nephrotoxicity in mice

Shakibaie

Forootanfar

Ghaseminejad

et al. 2019

J Biochem & Molecular Tox

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As shown in Table 1, impact factors of journals with included publications ranged from 17.2 to 47.8 in general medicine, 11.9 to 24.0 in oncology, 19.3 to 19.9 in cardiology, 10.3 to 10.6 in respiratory medicine, 11.9 to 19.7 in endocrinology, 16.7 to 18.4 in gastroenterology, and 6.3 for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The 29 selected meta-analyses evaluated a broad spectrum of pharmacological interventions, including 11 on treatment efficacy [24,29,33,35,36,40,42,[44][45][46][47], 2 on harms [31,50], and 16 [23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37-39, 41, 43, 48, 49, 51] on both efficacy and harms. Between 2 and 522 RCTs were included in each meta-analysis.…”

Section: Article Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Tables 1 and 2 of 29 (6.9%) included metaanalyses, both published in specialty journals [34,43], reported receiving pharmaceutical industry funding, 11 (37.9%) reported non-industry funding [23, 26, 29-32, 35, 40, 49-51], 3 reported no study funding (10.3%) [28,33,46], and the funding source of 13 (44.8%) was not reported [24, 25, 27, 36-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48]. Meta-analysis funding sources were reported for 8 of 11 meta-analyses from general medicine journals (72.7%) [23,26,[28][29][30][31][32][33], 5 of 15 (33.3%) from specialty medicine journals [34,35,40,43,46], and all 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews [49][50][51].…”

Section: Study Funding and Author-industry Financial Ties Of Metaanalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 5 of 29 (17.2%) meta-analyses [34,35,38,39,43], all published in specialty medicine journals and including the 2 meta-analyses with industry funding [34,43], the majority of authors had financial ties to industry. Author-industry financial ties were present in 4 of 11 meta-analyses published in general medicine journals (36.4%) [24][25][26]29], 9 of 15 (60.0%) in specialty medicine journals [34, 35, 37-40, 43, 45, 47], and 2 of 3 (66.7%) Cochrane reviews [49,50]. Specific types of author ties to industry are shown in Table 2.…”

Section: Study Funding and Author-industry Financial Ties Of Metaanalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Table 3, 13 of 29 (44.8%) meta-analyses reported the funding sources of included RCTs; 12 reported for all included RCTs [23,24,26,27,29,30,32,34,45,[49][50][51], whereas 1 reported for 5 of 7 included RCTs [39]. Funding sources of included RCTs were reported for 7 of 11 (63.6%) meta-analyses from general medicine journals [23,24,26,27,29,30,32], 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals [34,39,45], and for all 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews [49][50][51]. The mean, median, and range of the number of RCTs in meta-analyses that reported trial funding sources were 52.9, 13, and from 2 to 522, respectively.…”

Section: Reporting Of Trial Funders and Author Fcoi From Rcts Includementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009

Benea

Roseman²,

Bero

et al. 2020

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. Methods:We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study.Results: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. Protocol Publication: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https:// osf.io/8xt5p/ Limitations: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period.Conclusions: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

show abstract