Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799131›Full record

Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2022

Evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of inhaled methoxyflurane versus usual analgesia for prehospital injury and trauma: non-randomised clinical study.

Murray D Smith, Elise Rowan, Robert Spaight, Aloysius N Siriwardena

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06899724 (A Randomized Multicentre Placebo Controlled Non-inferiority Study of Intravenous Sedation Versus Methoxyflurane During Hysteroscopy.), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT06899724 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Multicentre Placebo Controlled Non-inferiority Study of Intravenous Sedation Versus Methoxyflurane During Hysteroscopy.

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr. John A. Thiel Medical Professional CorporationRan2025 to 2026Enrolled54ConditionsAnalgesiaArmsAnesthetics, Inhalation, Intravenous Sedatives with or Without Analgesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Proof of Concept: Is Small-scale Production of Diethyl Ether for Anesthetic Use Possible?Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Murray D SmithCommunity and Health Research Unit, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK. MDSmith@lincoln.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5363-4184
Elise RowanCommunity and Health Research Unit, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Robert SpaightClinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Aloysius N SiriwardenaCommunity and Health Research Unit, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
University of Lincoln · GBEast Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to investigate clinical benefits and economic costs of inhaled methoxyflurane when used by ambulance staff for prehospital emergency patients with trauma. Comparison is to usual analgesic practice (UAP) in the UK in which patient records were selected if treatment had been with Entonox® or intravenous morphine or intravenous paracetamol.

methodsOver a 12-month evaluation period, verbal numerical pain scores (VNPS) were gathered from adults with moderate to severe trauma pain attended by ambulance staff trained in administering and supplied with methoxyflurane. Control VNPS were obtained from ambulance database records of UAP in similar patients for the same period. Statistical modelling enabled comparisons of methoxyflurane to UAP, where we employed an Ordered Probit panel regression model for pain, linked by observational rules to VNPS.

resultsOverall, 96 trained paramedics and technicians from the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) prepared 510 doses of methoxyflurane for administration to a total of 483 patients. Comparison data extracted from the EMAS database of UAP episodes involved: 753 patients using Entonox®, 802 patients using intravenous morphine, and 278 patients using intravenous paracetamol. Modelling results included demonstration of faster pain relief with inhaled methoxyflurane (all p-values < 0.001). Methoxyflurane's time to achieve maximum pain relief was estimated to be significantly shorter: 26.4 min (95%CI 25.0-27.8) versus Entonox® 44.4 min (95%CI 39.5-49.3); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.0-27.9) versus intravenous morphine 41.8 min (95%CI 38.9-44.7); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.1-28.0) versus intravenous paracetamol 40.8 (95%CI 34.7-46.9). Scenario analyses showed that durations spent in severe pain were significantly less for methoxyflurane. Costing scenarios showed the added benefits of methoxyflurane were achieved at higher cost, eg versus Entonox® the additional cost per treated patient was estimated to be £12.30.

conclusionWhen administered to adults with moderate or severe pain due to trauma inhaled methoxyflurane reduced pain more rapidly and to a greater extent than Entonox® and parenteral analgesics. Inclusion of inhaled methoxyflurane to the suite of prehospital analgesics provides a clinically useful addition, but one that is costlier per treated patient.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnesthetics, InhalationAcetaminophenAdministration, InhalationAdultAmbulancesAnalgesicsHumansMethoxyfluraneMorphinePainPain MeasurementAcetaminophenAnalgesicsAnesthetics, InhalationMethoxyfluraneMorphineAmbulanceAnalgesiaEmergency medical servicesMethoxyfluranePainPrehospital

Identifiers

PMID35799131
PMCPMC9261021
OpenAlexW4284890705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.