↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ketorolac for postoperative pain in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Title
Ketorolac for postoperative pain in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012294.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewan D McNicol, Emily Rowe, Tess E Cooper

Abstract

Children who undergo surgical procedures in ambulatory and inpatient settings are at risk of experiencing acute pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce moderate to severe pain without many of the side effects associated with opioids. However, NSAIDs may cause bleeding, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, and potentially delay wound and bone healing. Intravenous administration of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children has not been approved in many countries, but is routinely administered in clinical practise. To assess the efficacy and safety of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children. We searched the following databases, without language restrictions, to November 2017: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 10); MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of reviews, and retrieved articles for additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac (in any dose, administered via any route) with placebo or another active treatment, in treating postoperative pain in participants zero to 18 years of age following any type of surgery. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We analyzed trials in two groups; ketorolac versus placebo, and ketorolac versus opioid. However, we performed limited pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE, and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We included 13 studies, involving 920 randomised participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among study designs, including the comparator arms (placebo, opioid, another NSAID, or a different regimen of ketorolac), dosing regimens (routes and timing of administration, single versus multiple dose), outcome assessment methods, and types of surgery. Mean study population ages ranged from 356 days to 13.9 years. The majority of studies chose a dose of either 0.5 mg/kg (as a single or multiple dose regimen) or 1 mg/kg (single dose with 0.5 mg/kg for any subsequent doses). One study administered interventions intraoperatively; the remainder administered interventions postoperatively, often after the participant reported moderate to severe pain.There were insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for either of our primary outcomes: participants with at least 50% pain relief; or mean postoperative pain intensity. Four studies individually reported statistically significant reductions in pain intensity when comparing ketorolac with placebo, but the studies were small and had various risks of bias, primarily due to incomplete outcome data and small sample sizes.We found limited data available for the secondary outcomes of participants requiring rescue medication and opioid consumption. For the former, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo; 74 of 135 (55%) participants receiving ketorolac required rescue analgesia in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) versus 81 of 127 (64%) receiving placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.00, P = 0.05; 4 studies, 262 participants). For opioid consumption in the PACU, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo (P = 0.61). For the time period zero to four hours after administration of the interventions, participants receiving ketorolac received 1.58 mg less intravenous morphine equivalents than those receiving placebo (95% CI -2.58 mg to -0.57 mg, P = 0.002; 2 studies, 129 participants). However, we are uncertain whether ketorolac has an important effect on opioid consumption, as the data were sparse and the results were inconsistent. Only one study reported data for opioid consumption when comparing ketorolac with an opioid. There were no clear differences between the ketorolac and opioid group at any time point. There were no data assessing this outcome for the comparison of ketorolac with another NSAID.There were insufficient data to allow us to analyze overall adverse event or serious adverse event rates. Although the majority of serious adverse events reported in those receiving ketorolac involved bleeding, the number of events was too low to conclude that bleeding risk was increased in those receiving ketorolac perioperatively. There was not a statistically significant increase in event rates for any specific adverse event, either in pooled analysis or in single studies, when comparing ketorolac and placebo. When comparing ketorolac with opioids or other NSAIDs, there were too few data to make any conclusions regarding event rates. Lastly, withdrawals due to adverse events were vary rare in all groups, reflecting the acute nature of such studies.We assessed the quality of evidence for all outcomes for each comparison (placebo or active) as very low, due to issues with risk of bias in individual studies, imprecision, heterogeneity between studies, and low overall numbers of participants and events. Due to the lack of data for our primary outcomes, and the very low-quality evidence for secondary outcomes, the efficacy and safety of ketorolac in treating postoperative pain in children were both uncertain. The evidence was insufficient to support or reject its use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Master 26 15%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 54 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 62 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,844,689
of 18,476,586 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,359
of 11,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,764
of 286,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,476,586 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.