ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Pain management of adults in the prehospital setting: a scoping review.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most effective treatment for pain in prehospital adults remains uncertain. This scoping review aimed to descriptively synthesize the evidence and identify research gaps regarding pain interventions for adults in prehospital settings.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and TRIP on 11 April 2025. Systematic reviews of adults receiving a pain intervention in the prehospital setting were included. We defined prehospital pain in this review as adults (18 years or >) treated for pain by a healthcare professional in the out-of-hospital setting from the time of first contact at the scene until emergency department admission. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality.
resultsThere were 22 systematic reviews (n = 193 primary studies, n = 93,092 adults) included that assessed 24 interventions including fentanyl (n = 9 reviews, 41%), ketamine (n = 9, 41%), morphine (n = 7, 32%), ketamine plus morphine (n = 7, 32%), fascia iliaca nerve block (n = 5, 23%), methoxyflurane (n = 5, 23%), nitrous oxide (n = 5, 23%), sufentanil (n = 4, 18%), tramadol (n = 4, 18%), paracetamol (n = 3, 14%), alfentanil (n = 2, 9%), femoral nerve block (n = 2, 9%), ibuprofen (n = 2, 9%), pentazocine (n = 2, 9%), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 2, 9%), auricular acupressure (n = 1, 5%), butorphanol (n = 1, 5%), hydromorphone (n = 1, 5%), ketamine plus nitrous oxide (n = 1, 5%), meperidine (n = 1, 5%), metamizole (n = 1, 5%), papaveretum (n = 1, 5%), and traction/splinting (n = 1, 5%). A third (38%; n = 8) of reviews conducted meta-analyses; median = 876 participants (IQR: 320–1538). However, no meta-analyses met the threshold of 5126 participants deemed necessary following trial sequence analysis. The quality of reviews was high (n = 8, 36%), moderate (n = 9, 41%), low (n = 2, 9%), and critically low (n = 3, 14%).
conclusionsLarger pragmatic trials using a single validated pain scale with interventions administered at standardized time intervals are required to facilitate evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making for pain management in prehospital settings. STUDY PROTOCOL PRE-REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MH7Q9 .
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.