Ketorolac in the Treatment of Acute Migraine: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the effectiveness of parenteral ketorolac (KET) in acute migraine. Acute migraine headaches are common emergency department presentations, and despite evidence for various treatments, there is conflicting evidence regarding the use of KET. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and gray literature sources were conducted. Included studies were randomized controlled trials in which KET alone or in combination with abortive therapy was compared with placebo or other standard therapy in adult patients with acute migraine. Two reviewers assessed relevance, inclusion, and study quality independently, and agreement was measured using kappa (k). Weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, the computerized search identified 418 citations and 1414 gray literature citations. From a list of 34 potentially relevant studies (k = 0.915), 8 trials were included, involving over 321 (141 KET) patients. The median quality scores were 3 (interquartile range: 2-4), and two used concealed allocation. There were no baseline differences in 10-point pain scores (WMD = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.39, 0.54). KET and meperidine resulted in similar pain scores at 60 minutes (WMD = 0.31; -0.68, 1.29); however, KET was more effective than intranasal sumatriptan (WMD = -4.07; 95% CI: -6.02 to -2.12). While there was no difference in pain relief at 60 minutes between KET and phenothiazine agents (WMD = 0.82; 95% CI: -1.33 to 2.98), heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 70%). Side effect profiles were similar between KET and comparison groups. Overall, KET is an effective alternative agent for the relief of acute migraine headache in the emergency department. KET results in similar pain relief, and is less potentially addictive than meperidine and more effective than sumatriptan; however, it may not be as effective as metoclopramide/phenothiazine agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".