Use of Diphenhydramine for Pain Management in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diphenhydramine, commonly prescribed as an antihistamine drug, is not known for its analgesic effect and its use in acute pain management has not been thoroughly investigated. AIM In this study, we aim to explore the analgesic properties of diphenhydramine and its role in acute pain reduction in the emergency department (ED). METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials that investigated the effect of intravenous diphenhydramine on the management of acute pain. Acute pain reduction was defined as a reduction in the visual pain score within one hour of drug administration. We excluded non-English articles, articles that measured the impact of diphenhydramine beyond the acute period, and those that used a pain score other than the 10-point visual pain scale. The information sources included PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, PROSPERO, and grey literature (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) databases for articles published between 1963 and January 2022, along with the articles referenced at the end of the reviews, for the keywords ‘diphenhydramine’, ‘antihistamine’, ‘pain’, and ‘analgesia’. The researchers used the RoB 2 Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised controlled trials. RESULTS We included four studies out of 128,902 involving 438 patients, out of whom 218 received diphenhydramine for pain control. The mean pain score in patients who received diphenhydramine was reduced by 28%; t(6)= -2.879, 95% CI [-2.87 to -0.23], p=0.028. When the baseline pain score was included in the analysis, we noted a reduction of 48% from the initial pain score. The pooled effect size or mean difference in acute pain reduction favouring diphenhydramine, taken from a random-effects model, was -1.53 (95% CI: [-2.35 to -0.70]) using Cohen’s d. CONCLUSION This meta-analysis confirms the analgesic advantages of diphenhydramine and supports its consideration as an adjunct for acute pain management in the ED.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".