October 12, 2017 Read Original Release

Journal gives balanced look at comparative harms from analgesics given to children after surgery

Reviewed By

Rating

Ibuprofen better choice over oral morphine for pain relief in children after minor surgery

Our Review Summary

This news release reports the outcome of a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of ibuprofen and oral morphine for managing pain in children who had received a range of minor orthopedic surgeries. No difference was found in self-reported pain for the two groups, but more adverse effects were reported for the oral morphine group. The release quotes the lead author who urges that ibuprofen should be consider to be a superior option for children in such cases.

Why This Matters

With the opioid epidemic consistently in the news over the past few years, a study that suggests an alternative to narcotics for pain is likely to garner interest. At the same time, some orthopedic surgeons have been reluctant to prescribe non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and aspirin for pain after orthopedic procedures because of concerns about their impact on bone-healing.

Criteria

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Readers are likely aware that non-prescription strength ibuprofen is readily available at a low price. The release doesn’t mention how much oral morphine costs, however. Thus, readers can’t tell whether ibuprofen might not only save children some unpleasant side effects, but save their parents money as well.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

This news release is missing a few details about the benefits that would make it better. We learn that 80 percent of children required pain relief at home and that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the two medications.

The advantage appears to be in the reduced amount of side effects from ibuprofen compared to oral morphine. The release states:

“Pain scores for children in both the oral morphine and ibuprofen groups were similar, but the children receiving oral morphine reported more adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness and constipation.

“Morphine did not provide superior analgesia, but was associated with significantly more adverse effects, making ibuprofen a better analgesic option,” write the authors.

We’d like the release to define what “significantly more adverse affects” really means.

Harms, or adverse effects, are a central part of this study, so a numerical comparison would be useful. As it turns out, 69 percent of children given oral morphine complained of negative side effects compared to 39 percent of those taking ibuprofen, according to the study. That’s a pretty big difference. We also don’t learn exactly which negative effects were most common, which turn out to be drowsiness (48 percent of study participants) and nausea (46 percent of participants).

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Side effects from the drugs were listed as nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness and constipation.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The release explains that this was a randomized clinical trial with 154 participants, their ages, that they had a range of different minor orthopedic surgeries, and that their response to pain medication was assessed for 24 hours. That’s sufficient information for the brief format of a news release.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There’s no disease mongering here. The news release clearly states that these children had minor procedures. It’s a little bit confusing that one take-away provided from the study is that more study needs to be done about management of severe pain, but overall the case is stated matter-of-factly.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

On EurekAlert!, where the release is hosted, it’s noted that the research was funded by Western University. We encourage news releases to include funders in the body of the release as well. The original study reports no conflict of interest.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

This news release reports the results of a randomized superiority trial designed to specifically compare two alternatives. So the release scores well on this criterion.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

Just like with cost, we don’t get information about how available oral morphine is. However, it seems safe to assume it’s widely available with a prescription.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

We feel a little bit misled by this news release. This isn’t the first study to demonstrate that ibuprofen can be equally as effective as morphine for mild to moderate pain by a long shot. It’s not even the first to show an equal effect in children with orthopedic issues receiving care at home. The news release should have made clear why exactly this study is news.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

No unjustifiable language was noted.

Total Score: 6 of 9 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.