MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402332430 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2024.968

Methoxyflurane Inhalation as an Analgesic for Minor Gynecological, Ambulatory, or Emergency Procedures

2024· article· en· W4402332430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethoxyfluraneAnalgesicAmbulatoryMedicineInhalationAnesthesiaMinor (academic)SurgeryHalothaneArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What Is the Issue? Patients presenting to outpatient clinics or emergency departments often undergo procedures that cause pain. Procedural sedation and analgesia for pain management requires a trained person to administer sedative agents and manage any drug-related complications during and after the procedures. Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) was approved in Canada in 2022 for short-term relief of moderate to severe acute pain associated with trauma or interventional medical procedures in conscious adult patients. Unlike conventional sedation, patients can self-administer and titrate the amount of methoxyflurane by inhaling through a 3 mL device of 99.9% methoxyflurane, which provides continuous analgesia for 25 to 30 minutes. Decision-makers are interested in understanding the use of inhaled methoxyflurane for analgesia in minor gynecological procedures or for use in ambulatory or emergency care settings. What Did We Do? We identified and summarized literature on the clinical effectiveness and safety of methoxyflurane compared to placebo or other analgesics in minor medical and surgical procedures. We also searched for economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of methoxyflurane to manage pain during minor procedures. We searched peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between January 1, 2012, and July 3, 2024. One reviewer screened citations for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? We identified 1 systematic review, 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 prospective cohort study, and 2 retrospective chart review studies that provided evidence on the efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane during various minor medical procedures, including cancer-related procedures (i.e., colonoscopy, transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy, bone marrow biopsy, and solid organ biopsy) and other minor procedures (i.e., portacath insertion, portacath removal, and reduction of acute shoulder dislocation and acute elbow dislocation). Collective evidence from the few studies available for each type of procedure shows that methoxyflurane is an effective analgesic that, compared with sedation, shortens the duration of both the procedure and recovery without impacting procedural success. Methoxyflurane at the analgesic dose appears to be safe — that is, not associated with kidney or liver toxicity and resulting in fewer cardiorespiratory complications or severe adverse events — despite being more likely to cause drowsiness and dizziness compared with placebo or conventional sedation. We did not find any studies on the clinical efficacy and safety or cost-effectiveness of methoxyflurane inhalation for the treatment of pain for minor gynecological procedures. We did not find any studies on cost-effectiveness of methoxyflurane inhalation for the treatment of pain for minor ambulatory or emergency procedures. What Does This Mean? The limited studies available suggested that patient-controlled analgesia with methoxyflurane is feasible and safe for use during various ambulatory and emergency procedures. The benefits of methoxyflurane in terms of reducing procedural and recovery time may facilitate workflow and shorten waiting lists in ambulatory and emergency care settings. More studies are needed to provide stronger evidence on the efficacy and safety of methoxyflurane during medical and surgical procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207