Alternative Medical Interventions Versus Conventional Treatment of Renal Colic: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the recent alternative medical interventions on renal colic pain and compare their efficiency with conventional treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) study, based on the PRISMA guidelines on online databases of PubMed, Scopus, and web of science. We quarried these databases with relevant keywords for clinical trial studies that aimed at reducing renal colic pain in patients refereeing to the ED from after January 2011 to February 2022. Randomized clinical trials that used the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for assessment of renal colic pain before and after medical interventions in adult patients were included in this study. NMA was conducted based on the continuous values of the mean difference of the pain after 30 and 60 minutes of the medication administration. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies that were meeting the inclusion criteria were included in our review with 2724 adult participants who were mostly male. Study arms included conventional medications (NSAID, Opioid, paracetamol), ketamine, MgSo4, desmopressin, and lidocaine. Based on the qualitative synthesis, ten studies (41.7%) did not find significant differences between conventional and alternative treatments. Also, there is no agreement on some more recent medications like using ketamine or desmopressin while MgSO4 and lidocaine use are supported by most studies. NMA revealed that desmopressin is significantly having worse pain reduction properties. NMA did not show any difference between ketamine, lidocaine, and MgSo4, versus the conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: To conclude, lidocaine and MgSo4 might be good alternative treatments for renal colic when conventional treatments are contraindicated or pain is not responding to those. Ketamine might be indicated in patient-based circumstances. Desmopressin may be agreeably avoided in further research or clinics.

Global burden of the COVID-19 associated patient-related delay in emergency healthcare: a panel of systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Apart from infecting a large number of people around the world and causing the death of many people, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have changed the healthcare processes of other diseases by changing the allocation of health resources and changing people's access or intention to healthcare systems. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of endpoints marking delayed healthcare seeking in medical emergencies, before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Based on a PICO model, medical emergency conditions that need timely intervention was selected to be evaluated as separate panels. In a systematic literature review, PubMed was quarried for each panel for studies comparing the incidence of various medical emergencies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Markers of failure/disruption of treatment due to delayed referral were included in the meta-analysis for each panel. RESULT: There was a statistically significant increased pooled median time of symptom onset to admission of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients; an increased rate of vasospasm of aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage; and perforation rate in acute appendicitis; diabetic ketoacidosis presentation rate among Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus patients; and rate of orchiectomy among testicular torsion patients in comparison of pre-COVID-19 with COVID-19 cohorts; while there were no significant changes in the event rate of ruptured ectopic pregnancy and median time of symptom onset to admission in the cerebrovascular accident (CVA) patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has largely disrupted the referral of patients for emergency medical care and patient-related delayed care should be addressed as a major health threat.