Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11082083›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial.

T H Rainer, P Jacobs, Y C Ng, N K Cheung, M Tam, P K Lam, R Wong, R A Cocks

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Oral administration of morphine versus ibuprofen to manage postfracture pain in children: a randomized trial.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T H RainerAccident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Rooms G05/06, Cancer Center, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
P Jacobs
Y C Ng
N K Cheung
M Tam
P K Lam
R Wong
R A Cocks
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the cost effectiveness of intravenous ketorolac compared with intravenous morphine in relieving pain after blunt limb injury in an accident and emergency department.

designDouble blind, randomised, controlled study and cost consequences analysis.

settingEmergency department of a university hospital in the New Territories of Hong Kong.

participants148 adult patients with painful isolated limb injuries (limb injuries without other injuries).

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was a cost consequences analysis comparing the use of ketorolac with morphine; secondary outcome measures were pain relief at rest and with limb movement, adverse events, patients' satisfaction, and time spent in the emergency department.

resultsNo difference was found in the median time taken to achieve pain relief at rest between the group receiving ketorolac and the group receiving morphine, but with movement the median reduction in pain score in the ketorolac group was 1.09 per hour (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.02) compared with 0.87 (0.84 to 1.06) in the morphine group (P=0.003). The odds of experiencing adverse events was 144.2 (41.5 to 501.6) times more likely with morphine than with ketorolac. The median time from the initial delivery of analgesia to the participant leaving the department was 20 (4.0 to 39.0) minutes shorter in the ketorolac group than in the morphine group (P=0.02). The mean cost per person was $HK44 ( pound4; $5.6) in the ketorolac group and $HK229 in the morphine group (P<0.0001). The median score for patients' satisfaction was 6.0 for ketorolac and 5.0 for morphine (P<0.0001).

conclusionIntravenous ketorolac is a more cost effective analgesic than intravenous morphine in the management of isolated limb injury in an emergency department in Hong Kong, and its use may be considered as the dominant strategy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCost-Benefit AnalysisDouble-Blind MethodEmergenciesExtremitiesFemaleFractures, BoneHumansInfusions, IntravenousKetorolacMaleMiddle AgedAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalKetorolacMorphine

Identifiers

PMID11082083
PMCPMC27526
OpenAlexW2165166026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.