Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34528122›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022

Intravenous lidocaine vs. NSAIDs for migraine attack in the ED: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Sultan Tuna Akgol Gur, Elif Oral Ahiskalioglu, Muhammed Enes Aydin, Abdullah Osman Kocak, Pelin Aydin, Ali Ahiskalioglu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sultan Tuna Akgol GurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ataturk University School of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey.
Elif Oral AhiskaliogluDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25070, Erzurum, Turkey. drelforl@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1234-5973
Muhammed Enes AydinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25070, Erzurum, Turkey.
Abdullah Osman KocakDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ataturk University School of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey.
Pelin AydinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Erzurum State Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey.
Ali AhiskaliogluDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25070, Erzurum, Turkey.
Atatürk University · TRErzurum Regional Training and Research Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough different forms of lidocaine are used for migraine attack headaches, the effect of intravenous lidocaine is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion for the treatment of migraine attack headaches.

methodsA hundred patients with migraine attacks, aged between 18 and 65, were randomly divided into two groups. The lidocaine group (n = 50) received a 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine bolus and a 1 mg/kg infusion (first 30 min), followed by a 0.5 mg/kg infusion for a further 30 min intravenously. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) group (n = 50) received 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol and saline at the same volume as the lidocaine at the same time intervals intravenously. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, additional analgesia requirement, side effects, and revisits to the emergency department were recorded.

resultsThe VAS score was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group for the first 20th and 30th minutes (p = 0.014 and p = 0.024, respectively). There was no difference between the VAS scores for the remaining evaluation times (p > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcomes, rescue medication requirement was not different between the two groups at both the 60th and 90th minutes (p > 0.05). However, the number of patients revisiting ED within 48-72 h was statistically less in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group (1/50 vs. 8/50; p = 0.031).

conclusionIntravenous lidocaine may be an alternative treatment method for patients with migraine attack headaches in the emergency department.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, LocalAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousKetoprofenLidocaineMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersPain MeasurementProspective StudiesTromethamineAnesthetics, LocalAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidaldexketoprofen trometamolKetoprofenLidocaineTromethamineAttack treatmentHeadacheIntravenous lidocaineMigrainePain

Identifiers

PMID34528122
OpenAlexW3200823595

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.