...
首页> 外文期刊>Emergency medicine journal: EMJ >Intramuscular versus oral diclofenac for acute pain in adults with acute musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED setting: a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial
【24h】

Intramuscular versus oral diclofenac for acute pain in adults with acute musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED setting: a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial

机译:肌内与口服双氯芬酸,用于急性肌肉骨骼伤害的急性疼痛造成的急性疼痛,归因于ED环境:一项前瞻性,双盲,双伪,随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective The current study aimed to ascertain differences in early postmedication pain reduction in participants presenting with acute musculoskeletal injuries (MSI) to the ED receiving intramuscular (IM) versus per oral (PO) diclofenac. Methods This was a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial conducted between January and June 2018 at the ED of Hamad General Hospital in Doha, Qatar. Adults (18-65 years of age) presenting to the ED within 24 hours of an acute MSI, who had a triage pain score measured using numerical rating scale of at least five or above were enrolled in this trial. Participants randomised to either IM (75 mg) with oral placebo, or oral (100 mg) diclofenac group with IM placebo using a computer-generated randomised concealed list in blocks of six and eight. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of IM versus PO participants attaining a 50% reduction in pain score at 30 min from t0. Results 300 participants were enrolled (150 in the IM diclofenac group and 150 in the PO diclofenac group) in the trial. The primary outcome was achieved in 99.3 (95% CI 96.3 to 100) in the IM group and 86.7 (95% CI 80.2 to 91.7) in PO group. There was an absolute risk difference of 12.7%. This corresponds to a number needed to treat of 8 cases (95% CI 6 to 14) receiving IM rather than the PO diclofenac in order to achieve one additional case of 50% pain reduction within 30 min of drug administration. There were no adverse events experienced in any treatment groups. Conclusion IM diclofenac injection provides rapid analgesia over PO administration of diclofenac. However, given the preparation needed for an IM injection, oral administration may be preferable when and if clinical circumstances allow a choice in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration route.
机译:目的目前的研究旨在确定患有急性肌肉骨骼损伤(MSI)的参与者早期临时医学疼痛减少差异的差异,以接受肌内(IM)与每口腔(PO)双氯芬酸的eD。方法这是2018年1月至2018年1月至6月在卡塔尔的哈马德综合医院埃德举行的前瞻性双盲随机对照试验。在本试验中注册了使用数值额定值测量的分类疼痛评分的急性MSI中的24小时内展示了24小时内的成人(18-65岁)。参与者随机与口服安慰剂或口服(100mg)双氯芬酸组合,使用电脑生成的随机隐藏列表在六到八个块中。主要目标是比较IM与PO参与者从T0达到30分钟的疼痛评分减少50%的比例。结果在试验中注册了300名参与者(150名在IM双氯芬酸组和150次中的150次)。主要结果在IM组中的99.3(95%CI 96.3至100)中实现,在PO组中的86.7(95%CI 80.2至91.7)中。绝对风险差异为12.7%。这对应于治疗8例(95%CI 6至14)的数量,而不是Po Diclofenac,以便在药物管理后30分钟内实现50%疼痛的疼痛减少。任何治疗组都没有经历的不良事件。结论IM Diclofenac注射液提供多氯芬酸的PO施用快速镇痛。然而,考虑到IM注射所需的制剂,当临床环境允许在非甾体类抗炎药物管理途径中选择时,口服给药可能是优选的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号