Citarella Gerardo, Heitzmann Vanessa, Ranninger Elisabeth, Bettschart-Wolfensberger Regula
Section of Anaesthesiology, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Animals (Basel). 2023 Nov 8;13(22):3447. doi: 10.3390/ani13223447.
This systematic review aimed to identify the evidence concerning the analgesic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to treat abdominal pain in horses, and to establish whether one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug could provide better analgesia compared to others. This systematic review was conducted following the "Systematic Review Protocol for Animal Intervention Studies". Research published between 1985 and the end of May 2023 was searched, using three databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, using the words equine OR horse AND colic OR abdominal pain AND non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug AND meloxicam OR flunixin meglumine OR phenylbutazone OR firocoxib OR ketoprofen. Risk of bias was assessed with the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, and level of evidence scored according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. From those only one study judged pain with a validated pain score, and a high risk of bias was identified due to the presence of selection, performance, and "other" types of bias. Therefore, caution is required in the interpretation of results from individual studies. To date, the evidence on analgesic efficacy to determine whether one drug is more potent than another regarding the treatment of abdominal pain in horses is sparse.
本系统评价旨在确定有关非甾体抗炎药治疗马腹痛镇痛效果的证据,并确定一种非甾体抗炎药是否比其他药物能提供更好的镇痛效果。本系统评价遵循“动物干预研究系统评价方案”进行。检索了1985年至2023年5月底发表的研究,使用了三个数据库,即PubMed、Embase和Scopus,检索词为马属动物或马、绞痛或腹痛、非甾体抗炎药、美洛昔康或氟尼辛葡甲胺或保泰松或伐地考昔或酮洛芬。使用SYRCLE偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,并根据牛津循证医学中心对证据水平进行评分。共有10项研究符合纳入标准。其中只有一项研究使用经过验证的疼痛评分来判断疼痛,并且由于存在选择、实施和“其他”类型的偏倚,确定存在高偏倚风险。因此,在解释个别研究结果时需要谨慎。迄今为止,关于确定一种药物在治疗马腹痛方面是否比另一种药物更有效的镇痛效果的证据很少。