Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Ul Ain, Aimen Zulfikar, Ilqa Ikram Akhund, Rija Lodhi, Rameesha Baig, Laiba Ghufran, Ayesha Rizwan, Meena Bai, Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar
{"title":"评估扁桃体切除术和/或腺样体切除术后塞来昔布的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Ul Ain, Aimen Zulfikar, Ilqa Ikram Akhund, Rija Lodhi, Rameesha Baig, Laiba Ghufran, Ayesha Rizwan, Meena Bai, Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar","doi":"10.1111/coa.14177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are common surgical procedures that cause persistent pain, bleeding, and functional limitations. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of celecoxib compared with a placebo for managing post-tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy pain and other adverse events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases from inception until July 2023. Dichotomous outcomes have been reported as risk ratios (RR) while continuous outcomes were reported using mean differences (MD). A funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>From 1394 records identified, 6 randomised double-blind trials comprising 591 participants undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were eligible for inclusion. A high dose (400 mg) of celecoxib was effective in decreasing the pain score for ‘worst pain’ after the procedure (MD: −10.98, [95% CI: −11.53, −10.42], <i>p</i> < .01, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) while a low dose (200 mg) was not significantly effective (<i>p</i> = 0.31). For managing other outcomes such as vomiting (RR: 1.37 [95% CI: 0.69, 2.68], <i>p</i> = 0.37, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 67%), diarrhoea (RR: 1.41, [95% CI: 0.75, 2.64], <i>p</i> = .29, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 42%), dizziness/drowsiness (RR: 0.90, [95% CI: 0.71, 1.15], <i>p</i> = .48, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), functional recovery time (<i>p</i> = .74), and headache (<i>p</i> = .91), there was no significant difference between the group on celecoxib and the placebo group regardless of dosage. Finally, there was no significant difference (RR: 1.02, [95% CI: 0.91, 1.15], <i>p</i> = .69, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) in the effect of the intervention on minimum bleeding, moderate bleeding, and profuse bleeding.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This meta-analysis provides robust evidence pooled from high-quality trials and raises questions about the efficacy of celecoxib for tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy, challenging existing perceptions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"49 5","pages":"578-587"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the efficacy of celecoxib after tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials\",\"authors\":\"Umm E Salma Shabbar Banatwala, Abdul Rehman Shah Syed, Noor Ul Ain, Aimen Zulfikar, Ilqa Ikram Akhund, Rija Lodhi, Rameesha Baig, Laiba Ghufran, Ayesha Rizwan, Meena Bai, Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/coa.14177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are common surgical procedures that cause persistent pain, bleeding, and functional limitations. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of celecoxib compared with a placebo for managing post-tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy pain and other adverse events.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases from inception until July 2023. Dichotomous outcomes have been reported as risk ratios (RR) while continuous outcomes were reported using mean differences (MD). A funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>From 1394 records identified, 6 randomised double-blind trials comprising 591 participants undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were eligible for inclusion. A high dose (400 mg) of celecoxib was effective in decreasing the pain score for ‘worst pain’ after the procedure (MD: −10.98, [95% CI: −11.53, −10.42], <i>p</i> < .01, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) while a low dose (200 mg) was not significantly effective (<i>p</i> = 0.31). For managing other outcomes such as vomiting (RR: 1.37 [95% CI: 0.69, 2.68], <i>p</i> = 0.37, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 67%), diarrhoea (RR: 1.41, [95% CI: 0.75, 2.64], <i>p</i> = .29, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 42%), dizziness/drowsiness (RR: 0.90, [95% CI: 0.71, 1.15], <i>p</i> = .48, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), functional recovery time (<i>p</i> = .74), and headache (<i>p</i> = .91), there was no significant difference between the group on celecoxib and the placebo group regardless of dosage. Finally, there was no significant difference (RR: 1.02, [95% CI: 0.91, 1.15], <i>p</i> = .69, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) in the effect of the intervention on minimum bleeding, moderate bleeding, and profuse bleeding.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This meta-analysis provides robust evidence pooled from high-quality trials and raises questions about the efficacy of celecoxib for tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy, challenging existing perceptions.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"49 5\",\"pages\":\"578-587\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14177\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the efficacy of celecoxib after tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials
Objectives
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are common surgical procedures that cause persistent pain, bleeding, and functional limitations. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of celecoxib compared with a placebo for managing post-tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy pain and other adverse events.
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases from inception until July 2023. Dichotomous outcomes have been reported as risk ratios (RR) while continuous outcomes were reported using mean differences (MD). A funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias.
Results
From 1394 records identified, 6 randomised double-blind trials comprising 591 participants undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were eligible for inclusion. A high dose (400 mg) of celecoxib was effective in decreasing the pain score for ‘worst pain’ after the procedure (MD: −10.98, [95% CI: −11.53, −10.42], p < .01, I2 = 0%) while a low dose (200 mg) was not significantly effective (p = 0.31). For managing other outcomes such as vomiting (RR: 1.37 [95% CI: 0.69, 2.68], p = 0.37, I2 = 67%), diarrhoea (RR: 1.41, [95% CI: 0.75, 2.64], p = .29, I2 = 42%), dizziness/drowsiness (RR: 0.90, [95% CI: 0.71, 1.15], p = .48, I2 = 0%), functional recovery time (p = .74), and headache (p = .91), there was no significant difference between the group on celecoxib and the placebo group regardless of dosage. Finally, there was no significant difference (RR: 1.02, [95% CI: 0.91, 1.15], p = .69, I2 = 0%) in the effect of the intervention on minimum bleeding, moderate bleeding, and profuse bleeding.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis provides robust evidence pooled from high-quality trials and raises questions about the efficacy of celecoxib for tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy, challenging existing perceptions.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with:
current otorhinolaryngological practice
audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL
head and neck oncology
head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery
continuing medical education and ORL training
The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research.
Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject.
• Negative/null results
In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.