Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25875821›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Metamizole-associated adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thomas Kötter, Bruno R da Costa, Margrit Fässler, Eva Blozik, Klaus Linde, Peter Jüni, Stephan Reichenbach, Martin Scherer

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Single dose dipyrone (metamizole) for acute postoperative pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas KötterInstitute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany; Department of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Bruno R da CostaInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Margrit FässlerInstitute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, München, Germany; Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Eva BlozikDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Klaus LindeInstitute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.
Peter JüniInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stephan ReichenbachInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
University of Bern · CHTechnical University of Munich · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.

objectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.

resultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.

conclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAdultAgranulocytosisAnalgesicsAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDipyroneFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultAcetaminophenAnalgesicsAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDipyrone

Identifiers

PMID25875821
PMCPMC4405027
OpenAlexW1975174602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.