Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011989Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 December 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Protocol
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Johanna Jokinen

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

  • Stephanie Weibel

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

  • Arash Afshari

    Juliane Marie Centre ‐ Anaesthesia and Surgical Clinic Department 4013, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Thorsten Artmann

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany

  • Leopold HJ Eberhart

    Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps‐University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

  • Nathan Leon Pace

    Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

  • Yvonne Jelting

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

  • Peter Kranke

    Correspondence to: Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Johanna Jokinen co‐ordinated and primarily wrote the protocol.

Stephanie Weibel helped to write the protocol and reviewed the drafts.

Arash Afshari and Nathan Pace provided a methodological and clinical perspective.

Peter Kranke designed and co‐ordinated the review and also provided a methodological and clinical perspective.

All authors reviewed the final and previous drafts.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Johanna Jokinen, Germany.

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Wuerzburg

  • Stephanie Weibel, Germany.

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Wuerzburg

  • Arash Afshari, Denmark.

    Juliane Marie Centre ‐ Anaesthesia and Surgical Clinic Department 4013, Copenhagen University Hospital

  • Thorsten Artmann, Germany.

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bottrop

  • Leopold HJ Eberhart, Germany.

    Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps‐University Marburg

  • Nathan L Pace, USA.

    Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah

  • Peter Kranke, Germany.

    Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Wuerzburg

External sources

  • Meta‐Analysis Grant of the European Society of Anaesthesiology, Belgium.

    Peter Kranke received a grant supporting this review from the European Society of Anaesthesiology

Declarations of interest

Johanna Jokinen: none known

Stephanie Weibel: none known

Arash Afshari: none known

Thorsten Artmann: none known

Leopold HJ Eberhart: has no conflict of interest regarding the topic of this review. Leopold HJ Eberhart has received lecture fees (from Baxter GmbH and Fresenius GmbH), payment for lectures (from Grünenthal GmbH, Baxter GmbH and Fresenius, GmbH) and has provided consultancy (for Grünenthal GmbH, Baxter GmbH, ratiopharm GmbH) for topics not related to the current review. He holds a board membership (with Grünenthal GmbH Deutschland) who do not have an interest in the topic of this review.

Nathan L Pace: has no conflict of interest regarding the topic of this review. Nathan L Pace has received payment for development of educational presentations (Barash, Cullen, Stoelting CLINICAL ANESTHESIA 8th edition) and provided consultancy (St Marks Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT) on topics not related to the current review. He has received supplements to attend Cochrane meetings. He also has stocks and shares in companies who have no interest in the topic of this review (TIAA‐CREF, Fidelity, Vanguard, USAA, MorganStanley).

Yvonne Jelting: none known

Peter Kranke: has no conflict of interest regarding the topic of this review. Peter Kranke has received lecture fees (from FreseniusKabi, MSD, Ratiopharm, Covidien) and has provided consultancy (to MSD, FreseniusKabi, Ratiopharm, Covidien) on topics not related to the current review. He has been involved in the conduct of Phase II and phase III clinical trials not related to the current review. He has published a case series on remifentanil for labour analgesia and has published research reports and editorial views on the topic under review. He has received a Meta‐Analysis grant supporting this review from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and is awaiting the outcome of a grant application to FreseniusKabi, PremierResearch (Acacia Ltd.).

Acknowledgements

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, this protocol has been commented on by three peers (an editor and two referees who are external to the editorial team) and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Peter Kranke: received a Meta‐Analysis grant supporting this review from the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Apr 13

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour

Review

Stephanie Weibel, Yvonne Jelting, Arash Afshari, Nathan Leon Pace, Leopold HJ Eberhart, Johanna Jokinen, Thorsten Artmann, Peter Kranke

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2

2015 Dec 12

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour

Protocol

Johanna Jokinen, Stephanie Weibel, Arash Afshari, Thorsten Artmann, Leopold HJ Eberhart, Nathan Leon Pace, Yvonne Jelting, Peter Kranke

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011989

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.