Good Practice in Postoperative and Procedural Pain Management ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evidence tablesEvidence tables are intended to allow the reader a rapidassessment of the strength of supporting evidence for individualanalgesics or analgesic strategies relevant to theprocedure in question. Evidence tabled as ‘Direct’ is thatderived from studies that have specifically investigated theprocedure in question. ‘Indirect’ evidence is derived fromstudies of procedures that the committee considered to besufficiently similar, in terms of expected pain intensity, toallow extrapolation of evidence. Recommendations havenot been formulated on the basis of indirect evidence.1.4 Methodology and evidence grading,good practice pointsSystematic methods were used to search for evidence.Electronic searches were performed on the publishedliterature between January 2006 and December 2011.Search strategies including databases and keywords aredescribed in detail in Appendix 1, the technical report.The bibliographies of meta-analyses, systematicreviews, and review articles published during this periodwere also scrutinized for relevant articles. Studiesin English were included if they were directly relevantto the patient population and procedures. Abstractswere obtained to confirm inclusion or exclusion wherenecessary. Full text versions of included articles wereobtained, a tabulated data extraction method was usedto summarize the articles, and they were graded from1 to 4 according to the criteria in Table 1.Table 1 Criteria for assigning levels of evidenceEvidence levels1 1++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs,or RCTs with a very low risk of bias1+ Well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs,or RCTs with a low risk of bias1) Meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with ahigh risk of bias2 2++ High quality systematic reviews of case–control or cohortstudies. High quality case–control or cohort studies with a verylow risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a high probabilitythat the relationship is causal2+ Well-conducted case–control or cohort studies with a lowrisk of confounding, bias, or chance and a moderate probabilitythat the relationship is causal2) Case–control or cohort studies with a high risk ofconfounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that therelationship is not causal3 Non-analytic studies, e.g. case reports, case series4 Expert opinionRecommendations were formulated, where appropriate,and graded from A to D according to the criteriadescribed in Table 2 using guidance published bythe Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network(SIGN), which are available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/index.html and the National Instituteof Clinical Evidence (NICE) http://guidance.nice.org.uk.Table 2 Grading of recommendationsABCDAt least one meta analysis, systematic review, or RCT ratedas 1++, and directly applicable to the target population; or Asystematic review of RCTs or a body of evidence consistingprincipally of studies rated as 1+, directly applicable to the targetpopulation, and demonstrating overall consistency of resultsA body of evidence including studies rated as 2++, directlyapplicable to the target population, and demonstrating overallconsistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence fromstudies rated as 1++ or 1+A body of evidence including studies rated as 2+, directly applicableto the target population and demonstrating overall consistency ofresults; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2++Evidence level 3 or 4; or Extrapolated evidence from studies ratedas 2+Good practice points indicate best practice based onthe clinical experience and opinion of the guidelinedevelopment committee but not necessarily supportedby research evidence; they are provided in situationswhere published evidence is insufficient to make aformal recommendation but the committee wish toemphasize an important aspect of good practice.1.5 Supplementary materialThe following supplementary material is available forthis guideline:Appendix 1. Technical ReportAppendix 2. Implementation, cost effectiveness andauditAppendix 3. Research implicationsPlease note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible forthe content or functionality of any supplementarymaterials supplied by the authors. Any queries (otherthan missing material) should be directed to the correspondingauthor for the article.2 ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79
1.6 Contact informationCorrespondence in relation to this guideline should beaddressed to:Dr RF Howard FRCA FFPMRCAAssociation of Paediatric Anaesthetists of GreatBritain and Ireland21 Portland PlaceLondon W1B 1PY, UKapagbiadministration@aagbi.orgfunding support from the following: Johnson andJohnson Pharmaceutical Research LLD, GrunenthalLtd, Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Wochardt UKLtd. Dr Neil S. Morton is Editor-in-Chief, PediatricAnesthesia and has received consultancy fees fromAstraZeneca, Smith & Nephew and Schering-Plough.His department has received research funding fromAbbott, AstraZeneca, Smith & Nephew and Carefusion(Alaris). The remaining members of the guidelinedevelopment committee confirm that they have no conflictsof interest to declare.1.7 Conflicts of interestDr Richard Howard has acted as a Consultant and/orhis department has received research or educationalª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79 3
Page 1 and 2: PediatricAnesthesiaVolume 22 Supple
Page 3: doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.3838.
Page 7 and 8: RecommendationsChildren’s self-re
Page 9 and 10: Topical anesthetic preparations, fo
Page 11 and 12: 2.7.6 Laparoscopic surgeryGood prac
Page 13 and 14: In order to assess pain, effective
Page 16 and 17: Postoperative painl NCCPC-PV (Non-C
Page 18 and 19: 68 Broome ME, Richtsmeier A, Maikle
Page 20 and 21: however, reductions in the response
Page 22 and 23: increased success rate (i.e., less
Page 24 and 25: Newer preparations such as liposoma
Page 26 and 27: Good practice pointLubricant contai
Page 28 and 29: most effective. There are a number
Page 30 and 31: 12 Bellieni C, Bagnoli F, Perrone S
Page 32 and 33: venipuncture pain in a pediatric em
Page 34 and 35: 172 van Twillert B, Bremer M, Faber
Page 36 and 37: necessary to ensure that the patien
Page 38 and 39: when compared with LA alone and sal
Page 40 and 41: Peribulbar block improves early ana
Page 42 and 43: Analgesia Table 5.5.1 Sub-umbilical
Page 44 and 45: was more effective with less motor
Page 46 and 47: with using landmark techniques (205
Page 48 and 49: Good practice pointWound infiltrati
Page 50 and 51: Analgesia Table 5.6.4 Urological Su
Page 52 and 53: (298). Ketorolac did not influence
Page 54 and 55:
well as the epidural technique for
Page 56 and 57:
Good practice pointA multi-modal an
Page 58 and 59:
14 Grainger J, Saravanappa N. Local
Page 60 and 61:
day-stay unit. Int J Paediatr Dent
Page 62 and 63:
tinuous epidural infusion in childr
Page 64 and 65:
245 Morton NS, O’Brien K. Analges
Page 66 and 67:
321 Taenzer AH, Clark C, Taenzer AH
Page 68 and 69:
Section 6.0AnalgesiaContents6.1 Ana
Page 70 and 71:
enhance systemic absorption. Lidoca
Page 73 and 74:
undergoes hepatic biotransformation
Page 75 and 76:
tein binding are reduced and the ha
Page 77 and 78:
a low-dose infusion but the child m
Page 79 and 80:
Table 6.6.1 Paracetamol dosing guid
Page 81:
steps that health care professional
show all

Good Practice in Postoperative and Procedural Pain Management ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?