ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of an Intravenous Acetaminophen Protocol in the Emergency Department.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential Economic and Clinical Implications of Multi-Dose Intravenous Acetaminophen After Robotic-Assisted Prostatectomy: A Secondary Descriptive Analysis of Publicly Available Phase IV Trial Data (NCT02369211).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Personalized Multimodal and Opioid-Sparing Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Management: Enhancing Recovery and Addressing the Post-Discharge Gap.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pain is a leading reason for Emergency Department (ED) evaluation, accounting for nearly half of all ED visits. Therefore, providing effective non-opioid analgesics in the ED is critical. Oral acetaminophen (APAP) is commonly administered in the ED but is limited to patients tolerating oral intake. Intravenous (IV) APAP provides significant pain reduction parenterally. The purpose of this quality assessment project was to evaluate the frequency of opioid use in patients receiving IV APAP, the safety of IV APAP, and compliance with an ED IV APAP protocol.
methodsThis study included all patients who received IV APAP in the ED of a tertiary care, level I trauma center, during a three-month period. The protocol required ED patients to be NPO (nil per os), 18 years or older, and administered with a single 1000 mg dose. The adverse reactions within 24 hours post-IV APAP, ED length of stay (LOS), and opioid administration within four hours post-IV APAP were assessed.
resultsNinety-four patients received IV APAP. All patients received a 1000 mg dose. One patient received more than one dose, but this patient had a 22-hour ED LOS. Two patients received oral medications within one hour of IV APAP (one received an antacid, and the other received carbamazepine and lamotrigine). An opioid was administered to 22 of the 94 (23.4%) patients during the four-hour protocol period. There were no reports of adverse reactions.
conclusionsThe results show excellent compliance with the protocol. IV APAP was safe and well-tolerated. Notably, most patients did not receive an opioid within four hours of IV APAP. IV APAP can be safely and effectively utilized as an analgesic and lessen ED opioid use.
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.