Straube, Sebastian

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","386"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","389"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","150"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Eccleston, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","Bell, Rae F."],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:40:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:40:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2010.05.011"],["dc.identifier.isi","000281675000008"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19142"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","\"Evidence\" in chronic pain - establishing best practice in the reporting of systematic reviews"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD007076"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:34:11Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:34:11Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is a recently developed antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Objectives To assess analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of pregabalin in acute and chronic pain. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to May 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers and on-line clinical trial databases. Selection criteria Randomised, double blind trials reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the patient as either the primary or a secondary outcome. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals. Main results There was no clear evidence of beneficial effects of pregabalin in established acute postoperative pain. No studies evaluated pregabalin in chronic nociceptive pain, like arthritis. Pregabalin at doses of 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily was effective in patients with postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (19 studies, 7003 participants). Pregabalin at 150 mg daily was generally ineffective. Efficacy was demonstrated for dichotomous outcomes equating to moderate or substantial pain relief, alongside lower rates for lack of efficacy discontinuations with increasing dose. The best (lowest) NNT for each condition for at least 50% pain relief over baseline (substantial benefit) for 600 mg pregabalin daily compared with placebo were 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.1) for postherpetic neuralgia, 5.0 (4.0 to 6.6) for painful diabetic neuropathy, 5.6 (3.5 to 14) for central neuropathic pain, and 11 (7.1 to 21) for fibromyalgia. With 600 mg pregabalin daily somnolence typically occurred in 15% to 25% and dizziness occurred in 27% to 46%. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 18 to 28%. The proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse event was not affected by dose, nor was the number with a serious adverse event, which was not more than with placebo. Higher rates of substantial benefit were found in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy than in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. For moderate and substantial benefit on any outcome NNTs for the former were generally six and below for 300 mg and 600 mg daily; for fibromyalgia NNTs were much higher, and generally seven and above. Authors' conclusions Pregabalin has proven efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions and fibromyalgia. A minority of patients will have substantial benefit with pregabalin, and more will have moderate benefit. Many will have no or trivial benefit, or will discontinue because of adverse events. Individualisation of treatment is needed to maximise pain relief and minimise adverse events. There is no evidence to support the use of pregabalin in acute pain scenarios."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub2"],["dc.identifier.isi","000268037500026"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19588419"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/17760"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","John Wiley & Sons Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.title","Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD002918"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","9"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Cole, Peter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:29:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:29:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Background This review is an update of a review first published in Issue 2, 2003, which was substantially updated in Issue 7, 2010. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are \"sympathetically maintained pains\" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain or by minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption. Objectives To review the evidence from randomised, double blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of chemical and surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain, including complex regional pain syndrome. Sympathectomy may be compared with placebo (sham) or other active treatment, provided both participants and outcome assessors are blind to treatment group allocation. Search methods On 2 July 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. We reviewed the bibliographies of all randomised trials identified and of review articles and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data. We screened references in the retrieved articles and literature reviews and contacted experts in the field of neuropathic pain. Selection criteria Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled studies assessing the effects of sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. No pooled analysis of data was possible. Main results Only one study satisfied our inclusion criteria, comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy with lumbar sympathetic neurolysis using phenol in 20 participants with CRPS. There was no comparison of sympathectomy versus shamor placebo. No dichotomous pain outcomes were reported. Average baseline scores of 8-9/10 on several pain scales fell to about 4/10 initially (1 day) and remained at 3-5/10 over four months. There were no significant differences between groups, except for \"unpleasant sensation\", which was higher with radiofrequency ablation. One participant in the phenol group experienced post sympathectomy neuralgia, while two in the radiofrequency group and one in the phenol group complained of paraesthesia during needle positioning. All participants had soreness at the injection site. Authors' conclusions The practice of surgical and chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS is based on very little high quality evidence. Sympathectomy should be used cautiously in clinical practice, in carefully selected patients, and probably only after failure of other treatment options. In these circumstances, establishing a clinical register of sympathectomy may help to inform treatment options on an individual patient basis."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Oxford Pain Relief Trust, UK"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD002918.pub3"],["dc.identifier.isi","000325129500011"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23999944"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/31064"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Wiley-blackwell"],["dc.relation.issn","1361-6137"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.title","Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","982"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","989"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","152"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Paine, Jocelyn"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:56:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:56:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","We defined response in acute pain trials according to percentage of maximum possible efficacy. Minimum efficacy criteria (MEC) of 0%, or at least 15%, 30%, 50%, and 70% pain relief were used to examine stability over time using total pain relief and summed pain intensity difference (SPID), sex differences, and sensitivity. We used individual patient data from placebo-controlled third molar extraction trials: 4 with single-dose oral etoricoxib 120 mg, and 2 with paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations. With etoricoxib, numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were stable between response levels of at least 15% (MEC15) and 50% pain relief (MEC50), and similar for total pain relief and SPID. NNTs were higher (worse) at extremes of MEC, especially with SPID. Results for women and men were similar. NNTs of lower efficacy treatments (paracetamol 500 and 1000 mg) rose rapidly at higher MEC. NNTs of high efficacy treatments (ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations) showed greater separation at higher MEC. The highest degree of discrimination between treatments was with MEC50 and MEC70. Etoricoxib 120 mg (NNT for >= 50% maximum 6-hour pain relief 1.7) and ibuprofen 200/400 mg plus paracetamol 500/1000 mg (NNTs 1.5 and 1.6, respectively) produced the lowest (best) NNTs in the dental pain model. Timing of patient request for additional analgesia is an alternative analgesic efficacy outcome measure. (C) 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.030"],["dc.identifier.isi","000289507500009"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21414722"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/23210"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Minimum efficacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta-analysis of acute pain trials: Examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","14"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","21"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","155"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Ireson-Paine, Jocelyn"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:47:00Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:47:00Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","A Cochrane review of ibuprofen in acute pain suggested that rapidly absorbed formulations of salts, or features to speed absorption, provided better analgesia than standard ibuprofen as the free acid. We examined several lines of evidence to investigate what benefit derived from fast-acting formulations. A systematic review of the kinetics of oral ibuprofen (30 studies, 1015 subjects) showed that median maximum plasma concentrations of fast-acting formulations occurred before 50 min (29-35 min for arginine, lysine, and sodium salts) compared with 90 min for standard formulations. An updated analysis of clinical trials (over 10,000 patients) showed that fast-acting formulations produced significantly better analgesia over 6 h and fewer remedications than standard formulations in both indirect and direct comparisons. In dental studies, 200-mg fast-acting ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.9-2.4) was as effective as 400 mg standard ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.4; 95% confidence interval 2.2-2.5), with faster onset of analgesia. Individual patient data analysis in dental pain demonstrated a strong correlation between more rapid reduction of pain intensity over 0-60 min and better pain relief over 0-6 h. Rapid initial reduction of pain intensity was also linked with reduced need for remedication. Fast-acting formulations of ibuprofen demonstrated more rapid absorption, faster initial pain reduction, good overall analgesia in more patients at the same dose, and probably longer-lasting analgesia, but with no higher rate of patients reporting adverse events. Achieving a better analgesic effect with fast-acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations has important implications for safety. Formulation chemistry is of potential importance for analgesics. (C) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved."],["dc.description.sponsorship","OMK"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.013"],["dc.identifier.isi","000329210000007"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23969325"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/35011"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","1872-6623"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Faster, higher, stronger? Evidence for formulation and efficacy for ibuprofen in acute pain"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","2449"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","2450"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","152"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:50:12Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:50:12Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2011.06.013"],["dc.identifier.isi","000296556200002"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21703765"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/21643"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Chronic widespread pain and interference with functioning"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.subtype","letter_note"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","c4463"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","341"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:40:17Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:40:17Z"],["dc.date.issued","2010"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1136/bmj.c4463"],["dc.identifier.isi","000281445900014"],["dc.identifier.pmid","20736275"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/19193"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Bmj Publishing Group"],["dc.relation.issn","1756-1833"],["dc.title","Small studies in meta-analyses Making the best of a little"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.subtype","letter_note"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","265"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","268"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","153"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Eccleston, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Aldington, Dominic"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiffen, Phillip J."],["dc.contributor.author","Bell, Rae F."],["dc.contributor.author","Hamunen, Katri"],["dc.contributor.author","Phillips, Ceri J."],["dc.contributor.author","McQuay, Henry J."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:14:05Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:14:05Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.pain.2011.10.004"],["dc.identifier.isi","000299319800006"],["dc.identifier.pmid","22055553"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/27318"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Estimate at your peril: Imputation methods for patient withdrawal can bias efficacy outcomes in chronic pain trials using responder analyses"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","2160"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","10"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Pain"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","2172"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","157"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Harden, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Schroeder, Heiko"],["dc.contributor.author","Arendacka, Barbora"],["dc.contributor.author","Fan, Xiangning"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Friede, Tim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:07:45Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:07:45Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Back schools are interventions that comprise exercise and education components. We aimed to systematically review the randomized controlled trial evidence on back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain. By searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central as well as bibliographies, we identified 31 studies for inclusion in our systematic review and 5 of these for inclusion in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses for pain scores and functional outcomes revealed statistical superiority of back schools vs no intervention for some comparisons but not others. No meta-analysis was feasible for the comparison of back schools vs other active treatments. Adverse events were poorly reported so that no reliable conclusions regarding the safety of back schools can be drawn, although some limited reassurance in this regard may be derived from the fact that few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported in the back school groups in the studies that did report on safety. Overall, the evidence base for the use of back schools to treat chronic low back pain is weak; in nearly a half-century since back schools were first trialled, no unequivocal evidence of benefit has emerged."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany [01KG1409]"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000640"],["dc.identifier.isi","000386015500006"],["dc.identifier.pmid","27257858"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/39339"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Lippincott Williams & Wilkins"],["dc.relation.issn","1872-6623"],["dc.relation.issn","0304-3959"],["dc.title","Back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain: possibility of benefit but no convincing evidence after 47 years of research-systematic review and meta-analysis"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","CD009107"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"],["dc.contributor.author","Derry, Sheena"],["dc.contributor.author","Straube, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Moore, R. Andrew"],["dc.contributor.author","Hancock, Heather"],["dc.contributor.author","Collins, Sally L."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:15:36Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:15:36Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Intracutaneous or subcutaneous injection of sterile water is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labour and it is therefore essential that it is properly evaluated. Adequate analgesia in labour is important to women worldwide. Sterile water injection is inexpensive, requires basic equipment, and appears to have few side effects. It is purported to work for labour pain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of sterile water injections for relief of pain (both typical contraction pain and intractable back pain) during labour compared to placebo (isotonic saline injections) or non-pharmacological interventions, and to identify any relevant effects on mode and timing of delivery, or safety of both mother and baby. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2011), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2010 to 30 May 2011), together with reference lists in retrieved studies and review articles. Selection criteria We included randomised, double blind, controlled studies using intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injections for pain relief during labour. There were no restrictions on birth place, parity, risk, age, weight, gestation, or stage of labour. Potential comparators were placebo (saline) and non-pharmacological interventions (e. g. hypnosis or biofeedback). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements or uncertainties by discussion with a third review author. Primary outcome measures were at least 50% pain relief, or at least 30%, pain relief, patient global impression of change of at least 'good', mode of delivery, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were women with any pain relief, use of rescue analgesia, and treatment group average pain relief. We made explicit judgements about potential biases in the studies. Main results We included seven studies, with 766 participants: four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All reported on low back pain in labour only. Methodological quality was good, but four studies were at high risk of bias due to small size of treatment groups, incomplete outcome data, and performance bias. All studies reported treatment group mean or median scores, finding greater reduction in pain for sterile water. However, failure to demonstrate a normal distribution for pain intensity or relief, and use of different scales, meant meta-analysis was inappropriate. No study reported primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes. One reported the number self-scoring 4/10 cm or more reduction in pain; significantly more had this outcome with sterile water (50% to 60%) than with placebo (20% to 25%). There was no significant difference between sterile water and saline for rates of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.02), instrumental delivery (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.18), rescue analgesia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.69), timing of delivery, or Apgar scores. Two studies reported that more women treated with sterile water would request the same analgesia in future. No study reported on women's satisfaction with pain relief, women's sense of control in labour, women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience, mother/baby interaction, rates of breastfeeding, maternal morbidity, infant long-term outcomes, or cost. No adverse events were reported other than transient pain with injection, which was worse with sterile water. Authors' conclusions The outcomes reported severely limit conclusions for clinical practice. We found little robust evidence that sterile water is effective for low back or any other labour pain. Neither did we find any difference in delivery or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Further large, methodologically rigorous studies are required to determine the efficacy of sterile water to relieve pain in labour."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Oxford Pain Relief Trust, UK"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/14651858.CD009107.pub2"],["dc.identifier.isi","000299291100061"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/27730"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Wiley-blackwell"],["dc.relation.issn","1469-493X"],["dc.title","Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour"],["dc.type","review"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]