Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26888026›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults.

Pramote Euasobhon, Sukanya Dej-Arkom, Arunotai Siriussawakul, Saipin Muangman, Wimonrat Sriraj, Porjai Pattanittum, Pisake Lumbiganon

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04555980 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Will Warm Patch on the Injecting Site Decrease the Injection Pain Induced by Propofol

TypeinterventionalSponsorFirst People's Hospital of ChenzhouRan2020 to 2020Enrolled120ConditionsPain Syndrome, Propofol Infusion Syndrome, Injection Site IrritationArmsWarming patch, Cotton patch
NCT07763548 phase4not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Novel Two-Step Dosing Induction Strategy (The Propofol Challenge Test) to Minimize Propofol Injection Pain: A Time-block-Allocated Comparative Effectiveness Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorErasme University HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled2,000ConditionsAny Patient Under General Anesthesia With Propofol InductionArmsBolus injection, Fractionned onjection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of CiprofolCurrent medicinal chemistry · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pramote EuasobhonDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Prannok Road, Siriraj, Bangkok-noi, Bangkok, Thailand, 10700.
Sukanya Dej-Arkom
Arunotai Siriussawakul
Saipin Muangman
Wimonrat Sriraj
Porjai Pattanittum
Pisake Lumbiganon
Khon Kaen University · THSiriraj Hospital · THMahidol University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOverall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthesiaAnesthesiologyAnesthetics, IntravenousAnesthetics, LocalHumansLidocaineMiddle AgedPainPropofolAnesthetics, IntravenousAnesthetics, LocalLidocainePropofol

Identifiers

PMID26888026
PMCPMC6463799
OpenAlexW2287217605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.