MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacologic Management of Acute Pain in Children

2025· review· en· W4407087371 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Olejnik, João Pedro Lima, Behnam Sadeghirad, Jason W. Busse, Iván D. Flórez, Samina Ali, Danny Jomaa, Adam Bleik, Mohamed Eltorki

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryImpactMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicMEDLINEMeta-analysisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialRelative riskAdverse effectVisual analogue scaleCINAHLData extractionClinical trialConfidence intervalIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychological interventionAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Several pharmacologic options exist for the management of acute pediatric pain; however, their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the relative benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy for acute pediatric pain through a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus to October 2023. Study Selection: Trials that enrolled children (aged <18 years) with acute pain and randomized them to receive a pharmacologic analgesic vs an alternate analgesic or placebo were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of reviewers independently reviewed abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of eligible trials. A frequentist random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses, and the certainty of evidence was assessed for treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Main Outcomes: The primary outcomes were pain severity (range, 0-10 cm using a visual analog scale; minimally important difference [MID], 1 cm), need for rescue medication, symptom relief, and adverse drug events. Results: A total of 41 trials involving 4935 children were included. High- to moderate-certainty evidence found that compared with placebo, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (weighted mean difference [WMD], -1.29; 95% CI, -1.89 to -0.70; modeled risk difference [RD] for achieving the MID, 16%), ketamine (WMD, -1.12; 95% CI, -2.09 to -0.14; modeled RD for achieving the MID, 14%), and mid-high potency opioids (WMD, -1.19; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.55; modeled RD for achieving the MID, 15%) reduced pain. Only NSAIDs reduced the need for rescue medication (relative risk [RR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.68; modeled RD, 16% fewer patients). Neither NSAIDs (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.55) nor acetaminophen (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.87) increased the risk of short-term gastrointestinal adverse events. All other comparisons showed moderate-certainty evidence of little to no difference from placebo or were supported by low/very low-certainty evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with placebo, NSAIDs, ketamine, and mid- to high-potency opioids are effective in reducing acute pediatric pain. NSAIDs provide the greatest benefits and least harm, suggesting that they should be the first-line therapy for acute painful conditions in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207