ArticlePaediatrics & child health2022
A randomized controlled pilot study of intranasal lidocaine in acute management of paediatric migraine and migraine-like headache.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Intranasal Analgesia for Acute Pain in Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
- What is the best approach to treat acute migraine in children in the emergency department?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Relief and Prevention of Post-Traumatic Headache Using Intranasal Delivery of Lidocaine for Youth (RAPPIDLY): A Feasibility Study.Neurotrauma reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study was aimed to determine the sample size required to conduct an efficacy randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate superiority of intranasal (IN) lidocaine to placebo as an analgesic option for children presenting to the paediatric emergency department (PED) with migraine or posttraumatic headache with migraine features and to evaluate study protocol feasibility. Study Design: This study is a double-blind RCT of children aged 7 to 16 years at a single-centre PED. Thirty-two participants were randomized to receive either IN 2% lidocaine or 0.9% sodium chloride. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with a Verbal Numeric Rating Scale pain score of <4 at 30 and 60 minutes post-IN therapy. Primary outcome data were analyzed using a test of differences between proportions. Secondary objectives included assessing the feasibility of our study protocol by evaluating recruitment rates, adverse drug events, and PED length of stay (LOS). Results: Six of 17 participants in the lidocaine group and 2 of 15 in the placebo group were treated successfully. Using these proportions with 95% confidence intervals and 80% power, the sample size required to find a significant difference between proportions would be 67 participants per arm. Our enrolment rate was 55% and there were no serious adverse drug events. The median PED LOS was similar between groups. Conclusion: We determined the sample size required to conduct a definitive RCT to evaluate the superiority of IN lidocaine to placebo and found the study protocol is feasible but identified important considerations in PED migraine trial design.
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.