Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42907741›Full record

Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2026

A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing nebulized fentanyl and intravenous morphine for acute pain management in the emergency department.

Pitchapar Preungprasob, Rapeeporn Rojsaengroeng, Chirakit Hengrasmee, Pornsiri Kanokkarnjana, Yaowapa Changya

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pitchapar PreungprasobDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand.
Rapeeporn RojsaengroengDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand. rapeeporn@nmu.ac.th.
Chirakit HengrasmeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand.
Pornsiri KanokkarnjanaDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand.
Yaowapa ChangyaDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntravenous (IV) morphine is the standard treatment for acute pain in emergency department (ED), but is limited by invasiveness and adverse effects. Nebulized fentanyl is a noninvasive alternative. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized fentanyl compared with IV morphine for acute pain relief 15 min after administration. Secondary outcomes included pain score trends, adverse effects, and rescue analgesia requirements at 30, 45, and 60 min.

methodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in patients aged 18 to 65 years who had severe pain (numeric rating scale(NRS) score ≥ 7) originating from headaches, musculoskeletal conditions, or cancer. Patients with abdominal pain, unstable vital signs, and chronic opioid use were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned to received either nebulized fentanyl (4 mcg/kg) or IV morphine (0.1 mg/kg). Pain scores, adverse events, and rescue analgesia were recorded at 15, 30, 45, and 60 min by emergency medicine residents who were blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean NRS difference did not exceed 3 points.

resultsSeventy-two patients were enrolled, with comparable baseline characteristics and NRS scores (nebulized fentanyl: 7.94 ± 1.09; IV: 8.14 ± 0.90). Both groups showed significant pain reduction at 15 min (nebulized fentanyl: 5.56 ± 1.66; IV: 5.67 ± 1.85; p < 0.001), with no significant difference in mean NRS reduction (p = 0.83). At all measured time points (15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes), the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference in pain reduction remained below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 3.

conclusionsNebulized fentanyl is a non-inferior, non-invasive alternative to IV morphine for severe acute pain in the ED. However, this finding applies predominantly to stable adults aged 18 to 65 years with musculoskeletal pain. It demonstrated a comparable short-term efficacy and preliminary safety profile within a 60-minute observation window. However, given the small sample size and restrictive exclusion criteria of this study, further larger-scale trials are required to fully establish its safety profile, particularly in broader and higher-risk patient populations." CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: TCTR20240624001. The Registration Date was 21 June2024.

Indexed as

Acute PainAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylMorphinePain ManagementAdministration, InhalationAdministration, IntravenousAdolescentAdultAgedDouble-Blind MethodEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylMorphineClinical efficacyFentanylMorphinePainPain management

Identifiers

PMID42907741
PMCPMC13688769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.