ArticleIrish journal of medical science2019
The prescription of lidocaine patches in osteoarthritis-a complete audit cycle.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNationally, 5% of the population have been prescribed topical lidocaine patches (TLPs). These patches cost €77-230 per month. The only licensed indication for TLP is post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). It has not proven to be effective for any other indication including musculoskeletal and post-surgical pain. It is estimated that only 5-10% of patients on TLP have PHN. The aim of this study was to audit the number of inpatients currently prescribed TLP-appropriately and inappropriately-and to examine the prescribing patterns.
methodsThe acute inpatient population was audited in August 2017 to determine TLP prevalence. Demographics, indication, prescriber grade, and whether TLP was commenced during the current admission were recorded. Education was given surrounding indications and licensed usage of TLP. The acute inpatient population was subsequently re-audited in February 2018.
resultsThere were 304 patients included in the initial study and 300 in the repeat study. The most common indication was musculoskeletal pain in each study, 75 and 77.78%, respectively. The number of inpatients on TLP fell from 17.1% (n = 52) to 6% (n = 18) after the intervention. The potential savings between the study periods are therefore €31,418-93,840 in total and €23,100-69,000 in musculoskeletal patients.
conclusionA large proportion of inpatients are inappropriately prescribed TLP predominantly for musculoskeletal pain, resulting in substantial avoidable cost to the hospital. Education of prescribers and implementation of policies is required to limit inappropriate prescribing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.