Pain management for hospitalized patients with rib fractures: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
Pain management
Regional anesthesia
Rib fractures
Systematic review
Journal
Journal of clinical anesthesia
ISSN: 1873-4529
Titre abrégé: J Clin Anesth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8812166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2024
02 2024
Historique:
received:
01
06
2023
revised:
24
07
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2023
entrez:
26
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rib fractures (RF) are common injuries. Multiple analgesia strategies are available for treatment of pain associated with RF. However, the optimal multimodal technique for pain management is not known. The primary aim of this review was to evaluate the status of evidence derived from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of pain management modalities for rib fracture pain. Other patient-centered outcomes were secondary objectives. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The screening process involved two phases, two researchers independently screened the title and abstract and subsequently screened full text. RCT data were extracted independently by two research team members. Consensus was achieved by comparison and discussion when needed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A total of 1344 citations were identified. Title and abstract screening excluded 1128 citations, and full text review excluded 177 articles. A total of 32 RCTs were included in the full review. Multiple analgesia techniques and medications were identified and their effect on pain score and need for rescue opioid analgesia. None of the included studies were judged to have a high risk of bias, while only 10 studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. This systematic review found that studies are of low quality with diverse methodologies and outcomes. A reduction in pain scores was found for epidural analgesia when compared with other modalities. However, the low quality of the evidence necessitates cautious interpretation of this finding. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376298 (Nov, 16, 2022).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37883901
pii: S0952-8180(23)00226-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111276
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111276Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest None.