Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28920534›Full record

ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2018

Analgesic effects of gabapentin and buprenorphine in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy using two pain-scoring systems: a randomized clinical trial.

Paulo V Steagall, Javier Benito, Beatriz P Monteiro, Graeme M Doodnaught, Guy Beauchamp, Marina C Evangelista

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Veterinary
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Gabapentin: Clinical Use and Pharmacokinetics in Dogs, Cats, and Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A pilot study of transdermal gabapentin in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paulo V Steagall1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Javier Benito1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Beatriz P Monteiro2 Animal Pharmacology Research Group of Québec, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Graeme M Doodnaught1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Guy Beauchamp4 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Marina C Evangelista1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada.
Université de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin-buprenorphine in comparison with meloxicam-buprenorphine or buprenorphine alone, and the correlation between two pain-scoring systems in cats. Methods Fifty-two adult cats were included in a randomized, controlled, blinded study. Anesthetic protocol included acepromazine-buprenorphine-propofol-isoflurane. The gabapentin-buprenorphine group (GBG, n = 19) received gabapentin capsules (50 mg PO) and buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg IM). The meloxicam-buprenorphine group (MBG, n = 15) received meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg SC), buprenorphine and placebo capsules (PO). The buprenorphine group (BG, n = 18) received buprenorphine and placebo capsules (PO). Gabapentin (GBG) and placebo (MBG and BG) capsules were administered 12 h and 1 h before surgery. Postoperative pain was evaluated up to 8 h after ovariohysterectomy using a multidimensional composite pain scale (MCPS) and the Glasgow pain scale (rCMPS-F). A dynamic interactive visual analog scale (DIVAS) was used to evaluate sedation. Rescue analgesia included buprenorphine and/or meloxicam if the MCPS ⩾6. A repeated measures linear model was used for statistical analysis ( P <0.05). Spearman's rank correlation between the MCPS and rCMPS-F was evaluated. Results The prevalence of rescue analgesia with a MCPS was not different ( P = 0.08; GBG, n = 5 [26%]; MBG, n = 2 [13%]; BG, n = 9 [50%]), but it would have been significantly higher in the BG (n = 14 [78%]) than GBG ( P = 0.003; n = 5 [26%]) and MBG ( P = 0.005; n = 4 [27%]) if intervention was based on the rCMPS-F. DIVAS and MCPS/rCMPS-F scores were not different among treatments. A strong correlation was observed between scoring systems ( P <0.0001). Conclusions and relevance Analgesia was not significantly different among treatments using an MCPS. Despite a strong correlation between scoring systems, GBG/MBG would have been superior to the BG with the rCMPS-F demonstrating a potential type II error with an MCPS due to small sample size.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidAnimalsBuprenorphineCat DiseasesCatsGabapentinHysterectomyOvariectomyPain ManagementPain MeasurementPostoperative PainRandom AllocationAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineGabapentin

Identifiers

PMID28920534
PMCPMC11104130
OpenAlexW2754464480

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.