Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Compared to Other Agents for Intrauterine Device Insertion Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Rachael G. Pirrami, Greeshma Pandya, Aminah Islam, Jalyn Shaw, Andrew Y. Hwang
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Compared to Other Agents for Intrauterine Device Insertion Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis","authors":"Rachael G. Pirrami, Greeshma Pandya, Aminah Islam, Jalyn Shaw, Andrew Y. Hwang","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.70345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Pain during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion remains a common barrier to use, with limited guidance on preferred pharmacological agents. Objective Evaluate the efficacy and safety of lidocaine compared to other pharmacologic agents for reducing pain during IUD insertion. Search Strategy Electronic database searches were conducted in August 2025 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1984 and August 2025. Selection Criteria RCTs involving women or adolescents that evaluated the efficacy and safety of lidocaine versus other pharmacologic agents for reducing IUD insertion pain. Data Collection and Analysis Conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB‐2) and meta‐analysis was conducted on 5 of the 6 studies using Meta‐Analysis version 4.0.2. Main Results Six studies ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 658) compared lidocaine to non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or misoprostol. Of these, two studies showed statistically significant pain reduction with lidocaine versus NSAIDs (study 1: 5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 7.3 ± 2.1, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001; study 2: 2.6 ± 0.9 vs. 4.1 ± 1.1, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). The meta‐analysis showed no statistically significant pain reduction with lidocaine overall. Conclusions Lidocaine did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in pain. It remains unclear whether lidocaine, NSAIDs, and misoprostol are clinically comparable options. Secondary outcomes varied, and safety data were limited, highlighting the need for standardized endpoints. Further head‐to‐head trials are needed to guide optimal pain management for IUD insertion.","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Pain during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion remains a common barrier to use, with limited guidance on preferred pharmacological agents. Objective Evaluate the efficacy and safety of lidocaine compared to other pharmacologic agents for reducing pain during IUD insertion. Search Strategy Electronic database searches were conducted in August 2025 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1984 and August 2025. Selection Criteria RCTs involving women or adolescents that evaluated the efficacy and safety of lidocaine versus other pharmacologic agents for reducing IUD insertion pain. Data Collection and Analysis Conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB‐2) and meta‐analysis was conducted on 5 of the 6 studies using Meta‐Analysis version 4.0.2. Main Results Six studies ( N = 658) compared lidocaine to non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or misoprostol. Of these, two studies showed statistically significant pain reduction with lidocaine versus NSAIDs (study 1: 5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 7.3 ± 2.1, p < 0.001; study 2: 2.6 ± 0.9 vs. 4.1 ± 1.1, p < 0.001). The meta‐analysis showed no statistically significant pain reduction with lidocaine overall. Conclusions Lidocaine did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in pain. It remains unclear whether lidocaine, NSAIDs, and misoprostol are clinically comparable options. Secondary outcomes varied, and safety data were limited, highlighting the need for standardized endpoints. Further head‐to‐head trials are needed to guide optimal pain management for IUD insertion.
利多卡因与其他药物相比治疗宫内节育器插入疼痛的有效性和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:在宫内节育器(IUD)插入过程中疼痛仍然是一个常见的使用障碍,对首选药物的指导有限。目的评价利多卡因与其他药物相比减轻宫内节育器插入疼痛的疗效和安全性。检索策略电子数据库检索于2025年8月进行,纳入1984年1月至2025年8月间发表的随机对照试验(rct)。选择标准:评价利多卡因与其他药物减少宫内节育器插入疼痛的有效性和安全性的女性或青少年随机对照试验。数据收集和分析按照系统评价和Meta分析(PRISMA)方法的首选报告项目进行。使用Cochrane随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB‐2)评估偏倚风险,使用meta - analysis 4.0.2版本对6项研究中的5项进行meta分析。6项研究(N = 658)将利多卡因与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)或米索前列醇进行了比较。其中,两项研究显示利多卡因与非甾体抗炎药相比疼痛减轻具有统计学意义(研究1:5.4±2.8 vs. 7.3±2.1,p < 0.001;研究2:2.6±0.9 vs. 4.1±1.1,p < 0.001)。meta分析显示利多卡因总体上没有统计学意义的疼痛减轻。结论:利多卡因对疼痛的减轻没有统计学意义。目前尚不清楚利多卡因、非甾体抗炎药和米索前列醇在临床上是否具有可比性。次要结局各不相同,安全性数据有限,因此需要标准化的终点。需要进一步的头对头试验来指导宫内节育器插入的最佳疼痛管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书