4.5 Review

CME Information: Are Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions Effective at Reducing Pain in Adult Patients Visiting the Emergency Department? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 939-957

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acem.13411

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesPain is a common complaint in the emergency department (ED). Its management currently depends heavily on pharmacologic treatment, but evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic interventions may be beneficial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether nonpharmacologic interventions in the ED are effective in reducing pain. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on all types of nonpharmacologic interventions in the ED with pain reduction as an outcome. We performed a qualitative summary of all studies meeting inclusion criteria and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies measuring postintervention changes in pain. Interventions were divided by type into five categories for more focused subanalyses. ResultsFifty-six studies met inclusion criteria for summary analysis. The most studied interventions were acupuncture (10 studies) and physical therapy (six studies). The type of pain most studied was musculoskeletal pain (34 studies). Most (42 studies) reported at least one improved outcome after intervention. Of these, 23 studies reported significantly reduced pain compared to control, 24 studies showed no difference, and nine studies had no control group. Meta-analysis included 22 qualifying randomized controlled trials and had a global standardized mean difference of -0.46 (95% confidence interval = -0.66 to -0.27) in favor of nonpharmacologic interventions for reducing pain. ConclusionNonpharmacologic interventions are often effective in reducing pain in the ED. However, most existing studies are small, warranting further investigation into their use for optimizing ED pain management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据