Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review


Autoři: Henrik Berlin aff001;  Martina Vall aff003;  Elisabeth Bergenäs aff003;  Karin Ridell aff001;  Susanne Brogårdh-Roth aff001;  Elisabeth Lager aff001;  Thomas List aff004;  Thomas Davidson aff002;  Gunilla Klingberg aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden aff001;  Health Technology Assessment—Odontology (HTA-O), Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden aff002;  Malmö University Library, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden aff003;  Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden aff004;  Department of Medical and Health Sciences (IMH), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227027

Souhrn

Background

There is an uncertainty regarding how to optimally prevent and/or reduce pain after dental treatment on children and adolescents.

Aim

To conduct a systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment to prevent postoperative pain in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years.

Design

A PICO-protocol was constructed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075589). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Cinahl, and EMBASE, November 2018. The researchers (reading in pairs) assessed identified studies independently, according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the PRISMA-statement.

Results

3,963 scientific papers were identified, whereof 216 read in full text. None met the inclusion criteria, leading to an empty SR. Ethical issues were identified related to the recognized knowledge gap in terms of challenges to conduct studies that are well-designed from methodological as well as ethical perspectives.

Conclusions

There is no scientific support for the use or rejection of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment in order to prevent or reduce postoperative pain in children and adolescents. Thus, no guidelines can be formulated on this issue based solely on scientific evidence. Well-designed studies on how to prevent pain from developing after dental treatment in children and adolescents is urgently needed.

Klíčová slova:

Adolescents – Adverse reactions – Analgesics – Cost-effectiveness analysis – Drug therapy – Oral administration – Oral health – Systematic reviews


Zdroje

1. McGrath PJ, Unruh AM. Measurement assessment of paediatric pain. In: McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, Tracey I & Turk D (editors). Wall and Melzack’s textbook of pain. 6th ed. [Kindle for iPad, version 6.14]. Philadephila: Elsevier Saunders; 2013.

2. Young KD. Pediatric procedural pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45(2):160–71. Review. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.09.019 15671974

3. Klingberg G, Broberg AG. Dental fear/anxiety and dental behaviour management problems in children and adolescents: a review of prevalence and concomitant psychological factors. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007;17(6):391–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00872.x 17935593

4. Raadal M, Strand GV, Amarante EC, Kvale G. Relationship between caries prevalence at 5 years of age and dental anxiety at 10. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2002;3(1):22–6. 12871013

5. Berlin H, List T, Ridell K, Klingberg G. Dentists' attitudes towards acute pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(2):152–60. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12316 28691744

6. INAHTA [Internet]. HTA Tools & Resources. Definitions. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). 2019. Available: http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/. Accessed 2019 January 24.

7. Heintz E, Lintamo L, Hultcrantz M, Jacobson S, Levi R, Munthe C, et al. Framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of healthcare technologies: the SBU approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(3):124–30. doi: 10.1017/S0266462315000264 26134927.

8. Ashley PF, Parekh S, Moles DR, Anand P, MacDonald LC. Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8(8):CD008392. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008392.pub3 27501304

9. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2(7889):1127–31. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)90884-8 4139420

10. Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B. The faces pain scale-revised: toward a common metric in paediatric pain measurement. Pain. 2001;93(2):173–83. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00314-1 11427329

11. Wong-Baker FACES Foundation. Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale. 2018. Available: http://www.WongBakerFACES.org. Accessed 2019 March 5.

12. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–26. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 3785962

13. Eland JM. Minimizing pain associated with prekindergarten intramuscular injections. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 1981;5(5–6):361–72. doi: 10.3109/01460868109106351 6922129

14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072

15. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583

16. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU). Assessment of methods in health care—A handbook. Stockholm. 2018. Available: https://www.sbu.se/contentassets/76adf07e270c48efaf67e3b560b7c59c/eng_metodboken.pdf.

17. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 21208779

18. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008 28935701

19. CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences). Guideline 17: research involving children and adolescents. In: International Ethical Guidelines for Healthrelated Research Involving Humans [Internet]. 2016. Available: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 2019 January 18.

20. Rotstein D, Laupacis A. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(2):177–83. doi: 10.1017/s0266462304000959 15209177

21. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160(10):1464–7. 10352637

22. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton C, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4 ed: Oxford University Press. 2015.

23. Shaddy RE, Denne SC. Committee on Drugs and Committee on Pediatric Research. Clinical report–guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):850–60. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0082 20351010

24. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(6):595–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.005 17493517

25. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036626 22574201

26. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1);MR000006. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 19160345

27. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii, ix-xi,1–193. doi: 10.3310/hta14080 20181324

28. IASP. International Association for the Study of Pain. 2014. Available: http://www.iasp-pain.org/Taxonomy. Accessed 2019 February 15.

29. McGrath PJ, Walco GA, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Brown MT, Davidson K, et al. Core outcome domains and measures for pediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9(9):771–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.04.007 18562251

30. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 28681707

31. Schlosser RW, Sigafoos J. Empty’ reviews and evidence-based practice. Evid Based Commun Assess Interv. 2009;3(1):1–3. doi: 10.1080/17489530902801067

32. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [Internet]. 2013. Available https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ Accessed 2019 March 7.

33. Mejàre IA, Klingberg G, Mowafi FK, Stecksén-Blicks C, Twetman SH, Tranæus SH, et al. A systematic map of systematic reviews in pediatric dentistry—what do we really know? PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117537 25706629

34. SBU. Databases with evidence gaps. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) [Internet]. 2018. [Updated 2018 Oct 4]. Available: https://www.sbu.se/en/publications/evidence-gaps/databases-with-evidence-gaps/ Accessed 2019 March 22.

35. SBU. Postoperativ smärtlindring vid oralkirurgiskt ingrepp på barn och ungdom. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) [Internet]. 2014. [Published 2012 Dec 21; updated 2014 Sept 2]. Available: https://www.sbu.se/sv/publikationer/kunskapsluckor/postoperativ-smartlindring-vid-oralkirurgiskt-ingrepp-pa-barn-och-ungdom-/ Accessed 2019 March 22

36. de Martino M, Chiarugi A. Recent Advances in Pediatric Use of Oral Paracetamol in Fever and Pain Management. Pain Ther. 2015;4(2):149–68. doi: 10.1007/s40122-015-0040-z 26518691

37. Rang HP, Ritter JM, Flower RJ, Henderson G, Dale MM. Rang and Dale's pharmacology. Edinburgh: Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone. 2016.

38. Lourido-Cebreiro T, Salgado FJ, Valdes L, Gonzalez-Barcala FJ. The association between paracetamol and asthma is still under debate. J Asthma. 2017;54(1):32–8. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2016.1194431 27575940

39. Barbagallo M, Sacerdote P. Ibuprofen in the treatment of children's inflammatory pain: a clinical and pharmacological overview. Minerva Pediatr. 2019;71(1):82–99. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4946.18.05453-1 30574736

40. Norman H, Elfineh M, Beijer E, Casswall T, Nemeth A. Also ibuprofen, not just paracetamol, can cause serious liver damage in children. NSAIDs should be used with caution in children, as shown in case with fatal outcome [In Swedish]. Läkartidningen. 2014;111(40):1709–11. 25759881


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12