Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38454338›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2024

Patient-controlled analgesia morphine for the management of acute pain in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Muhammad Baihaqi Oon, Nik Hisamuddin Nik Ab Rahman, Norhayati Mohd Noor, Mohd Boniami Yazid

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bolus-only versus bolus plus continuous infusion hydromorphone for refractory cancer pain: a prospective, multicenter, randomized noninferiority trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Muhammad Baihaqi OonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Nik Hisamuddin Nik Ab RahmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia. hisamuddin@usm.my.
Norhayati Mohd NoorDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Mohd Boniami YazidDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not always possible in the crowded Emergency Department. Therefore, an alternative way to improve pain care in the Emergency Department is needed to avoid this unpleasant sensation in the patients. The best solution to tackle this situation is using Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA), in the form of a PCA pump. STUDY

objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis was designated to evaluate the efficacy of PCA morphine in treating acute pain at Emergency Department.

methodsWe searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to February 2022 and identified randomized controlled trials with English language only that compare PCA morphine to IV morphine in treating patients presenting with acute pain at Emergency Department.

resultsEight trials were included in our review, comprising 1490 participants. We compared PCA morphine vs. IV morphine. There were no differences in the pain score between PCA and IV morphine (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.20, p = 0.25). Further subgroup analyses (origin of the pain, time of assessment and the durations) showed no difference except for the dosages as the PCA morphine reduced the pain compared to IV morphine in low and high dosages but only two studies were involved. However, the analysis showed PCA morphine increased patient satisfaction and reduced the number of patients who required additional analgesia compared to IV morphine (MD 0.12, P < 0.001), (MD 0.47, P < 0.001) respectively. Data obtained in this review pertaining to adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and drowsiness is limited since not all the trials reported the events.

conclusionsPCA morphine do appear to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of patient satisfaction and the number of patients who required additional analgesia. However, further studies targeting a larger sample size is required to increase the certainty of the evidence.

Indexed as

Acute painEmergency departmentIV morphinePCA morphine

Identifiers

PMID38454338
PMCPMC10921802
OpenAlexW4392563162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.