Meremikwu M, Oyo-Ita A
Department of Paediatrics, University of Calabar, PMB 1115, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2002(2):CD003676. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003676.
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is widely used for treating fever in children. Like ibuprofen, aspirin, and physical methods (such as fanning), paracetamol aims to provide relief from symptoms and prevent febrile convulsions. Uncertainty exists about the benefits of using it to treat fever in children.
To assess the effects of paracetamol for treating fever in children in relation to fever clearance time, febrile convulsions, and resolution of associated symptoms.
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (November 2001), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001), EMBASE (1988 to November 2001), LILACS (2001, 40a Edition CD-ROM), Science Citation Index (November 2001), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of children with fever from infections comparing: (1) paracetamol with placebo or no treatment; and (2) paracetamol with physical cooling methods (eg, sponging, bathing, or fanning). The primary outcomes were fever clearance time and febrile convulsion.
Two reviewers independently extracted data on methods, types of participants, interventions, and outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted using Relative Risk with 95% confidence intervals for discrete variables, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.
12 trials (n = 1509 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes varied between trials. No data were available on the primary outcome. There is insufficient evidence to show whether paracetamol influenced the risk of febrile convulsions. In a meta-analysis of two trials (n = 120), the proportion of children without fever by the second hour after treatment did not differ significantly between those given paracetamol and those sponged (Relative Risk 1.84; confidence interval 0.94 to 3.61, random effects model). The statistical test showed significant heterogeneity between the groups receiving paracetamol or physical methods. No severe adverse events were reported. The number of children with mild adverse events did not differ significantly between paracetamol and placebo, or paracetamol and physical methods, but numbers were small.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Trial evidence that paracetamol has a superior antipyretic effect than placebo is inconclusive. There is limited evidence that there is no difference between the antipyretic effect of paracetamol and physical methods. Data on adverse events in these trials were limited. Establishing standard outcomes will help comparisons between studies and meta-analysis.
对乙酰氨基酚(扑热息痛)广泛用于治疗儿童发热。与布洛芬、阿司匹林及物理方法(如扇风)一样,对乙酰氨基酚旨在缓解症状并预防热性惊厥。对于使用它治疗儿童发热的益处存在不确定性。
评估对乙酰氨基酚治疗儿童发热在退热时间、热性惊厥及相关症状缓解方面的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane传染病学组专业试验注册库(2001年11月)、Cochrane对照试验注册库(Cochrane图书馆2001年第4期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2001年11月)、EMBASE(1988年至2001年11月)、LILACS(2001年,40a版光盘)、科学引文索引(2001年11月)以及文章的参考文献列表。我们还联系了该领域的研究人员。
针对因感染发热儿童的随机和半随机试验,比较:(1)对乙酰氨基酚与安慰剂或不治疗;(2)对乙酰氨基酚与物理降温方法(如擦拭、洗澡或扇风)。主要结局为退热时间和热性惊厥。
两名评价员独立提取关于方法、参与者类型、干预措施和结局的数据。采用相对危险度及95%可信区间对离散变量进行荟萃分析,采用加权均数差对连续结局进行分析。
12项试验(n = 1509名参与者)符合纳入标准。各试验的结局有所不同。关于主要结局没有可用数据。没有足够证据表明对乙酰氨基酚是否会影响热性惊厥的风险。在两项试验(n = 120)的荟萃分析中,治疗后第二小时无发热儿童的比例在服用对乙酰氨基酚的儿童和擦拭降温的儿童之间没有显著差异(相对危险度1.84;可信区间0.94至3.61,随机效应模型)。统计检验显示接受对乙酰氨基酚或物理方法治疗的组间存在显著异质性。未报告严重不良事件。对乙酰氨基酚与安慰剂组或对乙酰氨基酚与物理方法组之间出现轻度不良事件的儿童数量没有显著差异,但数量较少。
对乙酰氨基酚比安慰剂具有更优退热效果的试验证据尚无定论。仅有有限证据表明对乙酰氨基酚与物理方法的退热效果无差异。这些试验中关于不良事件的数据有限。确立标准结局将有助于不同研究之间的比较及荟萃分析。