SynthesisPloS one2019
Intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Pooled it
- Nose-brain axis: A bridge from the nasal cavity to the central nervous system.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Intraoperative application of low-dose dexmedetomidine or lidocaine for postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients following craniotomy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Rare variants with large effects provide functional insights into the pathology of migraine subtypes, with and without aura.Nature genetics · 2023Article
- Emerging Pharmacological Treatments for Migraine in the Pediatric Population.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Approach to Pediatric Intractable Migraine.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2021Review
- A simple modification of sphenopalatine block for post-dural puncture headache.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Relief and Prevention of Post-Traumatic Headache Using Intranasal Delivery of Lidocaine for Youth (RAPPIDLY): A Feasibility Study.Neurotrauma reportsArticle
- Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) blocks: Evidence and implementation for acute migraine treatment in the primary care setting.The journal of medicine accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntranasal lidocaine has been shown to be effective in treating patients with acute migraines; however, its efficacy is still controversial. In this study, we intend to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator for the treatment of migraines.
methodPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched from their inceptions to November 2018. Randomized controlled studies investigating the efficacy of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized data using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were success rate, the need for rescue medicine, and relapse occurrences. We registered the study at PROSPERO with an ID of CRD42018116226.
resultsSix studies (n = 613) were eligible for the meta-analysis. Overall, the results revealed that the study population who was administered intranasal lidocaine had a lower pain intensity at 5 min (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.19) and 15 min (SMD = -0.72; 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.19), had a higher success rate (RR = 3.55; 95% CI: 1.89 to 6.64) and a less frequent need for rescue medicine (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.72) than the control group. These beneficial effects were not observed when an antiemetic was administered. Furthermore, intranasal lidocaine use had no significant influence on the relapse rate (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.51-1.56), regardless of the use of antiemetics. Using lidocaine caused local irritation in up to 49.4% of the patients in one report but did not cause major adverse events.
conclusionIntranasal lidocaine can be considered a useful option for patients with an acute migraine. It yields a high success rate, a low pain intensity, an infrequent need for rescue medicine, and tolerable adverse events. The administration of antiemetics is an important confounding factor.
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.