ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Efficacy of Methocarbamol and Nefopam in Orthopedic Surgical Pain.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utility of the Perfusion Index as an Indicator of Anesthetic Depth during Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Neurosurgery with Intraoperative Neuromonitoring : A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Pain after orthopedic surgeries represents a special concern in patients with fractures. The use of multimodal analgesia significantly reduced the opioid need and reduced the risk of their side effects. Objectives This study compared the effectiveness and safety of methocarbamol and nefopam in the reduction of post-operative pain for patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries. Method This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial took place at Al-Sader Teaching Hospital in Basrah, Iraq, from the first of February 2022 to the end of October 2023. The study aimed to assess the post-operative pain relief efficacy and safety of intramuscular nefopam (20 mg) and intravenous methocarbamol (1 g) in 110 adults (aged 18-65) undergoing elective orthopedic surgeries. Exclusions were made for allergies to the drugs, substance abuse history, and severe hepatic or renal impairment. Participants were randomized into two groups, with pain intensity measured at one hour, six hours, and 12 hours post-operation using the visual analog scale (VAS). Side effects were also evaluated. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 27, with a significance level set at p<0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results In this study, we conducted a rigorous comparison between two groups, methocarbamol and nefopam, to evaluate their efficacy and safety in post-operative pain management. We started by ensuring that the groups were well-matched in terms of age, gender distribution, and body mass index (BMI). The results showed remarkable similarities in mean age, gender distribution, and BMI, supported by robust p-values, affirming the effective matching of the two groups. Moving to pain management, we observed a significant advantage in favor of methocarbamol. At all-time intervals (one hour, six hours, and 12 hours post-operation), methocarbamol consistently demonstrated lower mean VAS scores compared to nefopam. These differences were highly statistically significant, underscoring the superior pain relief efficacy of methocarbamol. Exploring side effects, we found no statistically significant disparities in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting between the two groups. However, there was a noticeable trend toward higher tachycardia incidence in the nefopam group, though it did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion The present study showed a higher efficacy of methocarbamol in post-operative pain reduction in comparison to nefopam. No serious side effects were observed with both drugs.
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.