ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Intravenous Ibuprofen Versus Intravenous Ketorolac in Acute Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review 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.
- Post-cesarean delivery pain management.Pain management · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are popularly used in the management of acute postoperative pain. Intravenous (IV) ketorolac has been used for several years for this purpose. Recently, IV ibuprofen has been introduced for the management of postoperative pain. This review aims to compare the efficacy of these two NSAIDs in managing acute postoperative pain. After registering the protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), databases like PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid were searched using relevant keywords. Twenty-four-hour opioid consumption was the primary outcome. Pain scores, patient satisfaction, rescue analgesia requirements, and adverse events were the secondary outcomes assessed. Out of 124 articles that were retrieved, six articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) was used for risk of bias assessment, Review Manager (RevMan) was used for a quantitative meta-analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of evidence. The risk of bias was high in all categories. The 24-hour opioid requirement, which was the primary outcome, was comparable between both groups (mean difference: -4.72; 95% CI: -5.65, -3.80; P=0.79), with significant heterogeneity (I
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.