Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain

Racial Disparities in Opioid Analgesia Administration Among Adult Emergency Department Patients with Abdominal Pain

INTRODUCTION

Racial disparities in pain management have been reported among emergency department (ED) patients. In this study we evaluated the association between patients' self-identified race/ethnicity and the administration of opioid analgesia among ED patients with abdominal pain, the most common chief complaint for ED presentations in the United States.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (age ≥18 years) patients who presented to the ED of a single center with abdominal pain from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical information, including patients' race and ethnicity, from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was the ED administration of any opioid analgesic (binary). Secondary outcomes included the administration of non-opioid analgesia (binary) and administration of any analgesia (binary). We used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) of the association between a patient's race/ethnicity and analgesia administration. Covariates included age, sex, initial pain score, Emergency Severity Index, and ED visits in the prior 30 days. Subgroup analyses were performed in non-pregnant patients, those who underwent any imaging study, were admitted to the hospital, and who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival.

RESULTS

We studied 7,367 patients: 45% (3,314) were non-Hispanic (NH) White; 28% (2,092) were Hispanic/Latinx; 19% (1,384) were NH Black, and 8% (577) were Asian. Overall, 44% (3,207) of patients received opioid analgesia. In multivariable regression models, non-White patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia compared with White patients (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.83 for Hispanic/Latinx patients; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72 for Black patients; and OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78 for Asian patients). Black patients were also less likely to receive non-opioid analgesia, and Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients were less likely than White patients to receive any analgesia. The associations were similar across subgroups; however, the association was attenuated among patients who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival.

CONCLUSION

Hispanic/Latinx, Black, and Asian patients were significantly less likely to receive opioid analgesia than White patients when presenting to the ED with abdominal pain. Black patients were also less likely than White patients to receive non-opioid analgesia.

The pain in the Emergency Department: Choosing and treating wisely before and during the COVID-19 era

Pain is a frequent reason for referral to the Emergency Department (ED). Adequate management of pain is a moral and ethical imperative. If not correctly treated, acute pain can cause physical and psychological complications, and become chronic with severe consequences such as anxiety, depression, and social isolation. As consequence, emergency clinicians should treat pain as soon as possible, avoiding delays even in case of acute abdominal pain. Pain management is particularly complex in the elderly and emergency clinicians should always consider AGS Beers criteria ® to avoid inappropriate medications, severe side-effects, and drug-drug interactions. Pain is also a common cause of delirium in older patients. The SARS CoV-2 infection not only can cause acute pain, but also exacerbate chronic pain, particularly in the elderly, who are at high risk to be infected. Looking at all this evidence, emergency clinicians should treat pain with different strategies according to their experience and cultural background, making the right choice for each patient. This work is a critical review of the pain management in the ED, with a particular attention on the effects of COVID-19 in the EDs. We conducted a systematic search of the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Medline from 2000 to 2020, using the keywords of “pain”, “emergency”, “COVID19”, “elderly”, “palliative care”, “ketamine”, “dexmedetomidine”, and “post-traumatic stress disorder”. The aim of this review is to help emergency clinicians to correctly manage pain in the ED with a new point of view regarding the pain management in COVID-19 patients.

A Retrospective Comparison of Intravenous Opioid Use for Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department After Implementation of Order Set Restriction

BACKGROUND

This study was developed to provide insight into the effects of an i.v. opioid order set on prescribing of i.v. opioids in the emergency department (ED) for nontraumatic, unspecified abdominal pain. Research is needed in this area to catalyze more consistent and evidence-based i.v. opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to show the impact of an i.v. opioid order set restriction. Secondary objectives were the change in ED length of stay, change in pain score, total i.v. opioid morphine milligram equivalents, and number of i.v. opioid doses.

METHODS

Patients included in the study visited the ED with a relevant ICD-10-CM diagnosis code for nontraumatic, unspecified abdominal pain 3 months prior to or 3 months after the restriction. A sample size of 596 patients was calculated for 80% power to identify a 25% difference in the primary outcome.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant decrease in i.v. opioid administration after the restriction (44.2% preintervention, 23.2% postintervention; p < 0.001). Mean length of stay decreased from 6.6 h to 6.2 h (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores. Oral opioid use increased significantly (20.5% preintervention, 31.7% postintervention; p < 0.001); therefore, combined i.v. and oral opioid use did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The restriction correlated with a decrease in i.v. opioids. Pain control was not diminished as a result of the restriction. The results of this study may be used to generate hypotheses for comparing different modes of pain management in the ED in this patient population and others. Future studies should continue to evaluate the impact of oral vs. i.v. opioids.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. There is concern about the use of oral opioids for acute pain leading to dependence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits or harms of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, 2020 Issue 1, MEDLINE (from 1946), and Embase (from 1980) to January 2020; other databases were searched to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain, or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon, or muscle occurring within 48 hours of inclusion in the study), and comparing oral NSAIDs versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects, and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Three studies included children only. The others included predominantly young adults; approximately 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, and five were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. Some evidence relating to pain relief was high certainty. Other evidence was either moderate, low or very low certainty, reflecting study limitations, indirectness, imprecision, or combinations of these. Thus, we are certain or moderately certain about some of the estimates, and uncertain or very uncertain of others. Eleven studies, involving 1853 participants compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. There were no differences between the two groups in pain at one to two hours (1178 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), at days one to three (1232 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), and at day seven or later (467 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was little difference between the groups in numbers of participants with minimal swelling at day seven or later (77 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from three studies (386 participants) means we are uncertain of the finding of little difference between the two groups in return to function at day seven or later. There was low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (1504 participants) that NSAIDs may slightly increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with paracetamol. There was low-certainty evidence from nine studies (1679 participants) of little difference in neurological adverse events between the NSAID and paracetamol groups. Six studies, involving 1212 participants compared NSAIDs with opioids. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in pain at one hour (1058 participants, 4 studies), and low-certainty evidence for no difference in pain at days four or seven (706 participants, 1 study). There was very low-certainty evidence of no important difference between the groups in swelling (84 participants, 1 study). Participants in the NSAIDs group were more likely to return to function in 7 to 10 days (542 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence (1143 participants, 5 studies) that NSAIDs were less likely to result in gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events compared with opioids. Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day one (51 participants, 1 study), day three (149 participants, 2 studies), or day seven (138 participants, 2 studies); swelling (230 participants, 3 studies); return to function at day seven (89 participants, 1 study); and the risk of gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies). No studies reported re-injury rates. No studies compared NSAIDs with oral complementary and alternative medicines, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paracetamol, NSAIDs make no difference to pain at one to two hours and at two to three days, and may make no difference at day seven or beyond. NSAIDs may result in a small increase in gastrointestinal adverse events and may make no difference in neurological adverse events compared with paracetamol. Compared with opioids, NSAIDs probably make no difference to pain at one hour, and may make no difference at days four or seven. NSAIDs probably result in fewer gastrointestinal and neurological adverse effects compared with opioids. The very low-certainly evidence for all outcomes for the NSAIDs versus paracetamol with opioid combination analgesics means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences in pain or adverse effects. The current evidence should not be extrapolated to adults older than 65 years, as this group was not well represented in the studies.

Does administration of haloperidol or ketorolac decrease opioid administration for abdominal pain patients? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol and ketorolac have been recommended as therapies that may decrease opioid use for treatment of pain in emergency department patients. The objective of our study is to determine if administration of haloperidol or ketorolac is associated with lower use of i.v. opioids for patients with non-specific abdominal pain.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adults (Age 18-60) with non-specific abdominal pain presenting to an emergency department in a large healthcare system. Cases were identified using ICD-10 codes and variables were abstracted from electronic health records. The association between administration of haloperidol or ketorolac with 1) any i.v. opioid administration and 2) receiving >1 dose of i.v. opioids were measured using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) from nominal logistic regression. The model included potential confounders related to both opioid and ketorolac or haloperidol administration.

RESULTS

Of 11,688 patients 4091 received one or more doses of an i.v. opioid, 240 received haloperidol and 1788 received ketorolac. The majority of patients were women (67%) and the median age was 32 years. Odds ratios were adjusted for variables associated with opioids, ketorolac or haloperidol use. Haloperidol was not associated with decreased i.v. opioid use (AOR for receiving iv opioids 2.0, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.6) or a lower odds of reciving >1 dose of (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). Ketorolac was associated with a modest decrease in i.v. opioid use (AOR 0.84 95% CI.0.76 to 0.94 for receiving iv opioids) and a modest decrease for receiving multiple dose of iv opioids (AOR 0.79 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol was not associated with decreased i.v. opioid use. Ketorolac was associated with a modest decrease in i.v. opioid use. Providers should consider the use of haloperidol and ketorolac as potentially beneficial in some cases, but there is a need for high quality studies before they can be recommended as standard therapy.

Assessment of Acute Pain Management and Associated Factors among Emergency Surgical Patients in Gondar University Specialized Hospital Emergency Department, Northwest Ethiopia, 2018: Institutional Based Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Adequate pain management has led to increased comfort in emergency patients, reducing morbidity and improving long term outcomes. Different pain management modalities have been applied in the emergency department among which systemic analgesia is commonly used by preceding a nerve block. Several factors have been associated with poor pain management in low resource setting areas. We aimed to determine pain management modalities and associated factors among emergency surgical patients.

Patients and Methods

After obtaining ethical approval from Ethical Review Committee, 203 volunteer patients were enrolled. Institutional based cross-sectional prospective study was conducted from April to May 2018 in Gondar University Specialized Hospital Emergency Department. The severity of pain was measured through Numerical Rating Scale and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical package version 23. Descriptive statistics cross-tab and binary logistics were performed to identify factors related to pain management in emergency department.

Results

A total of 203 patients, 138 (68%) males and 65 (32%) females with response rate of 94%, participated in this study. Among them, 66% patients received analgesia within two hours of ED presentation with a mean ± SD of 61.0 ± 34.1 minutes. 70.4 % of patients complained of moderate and severe pain after receiving analgesia. There was a significant difference between trauma and nontrauma patients in mean time of analgesia receiving and residual pain severity (p < 0.001). Age, trauma, physician pain assessment, and severity of pain were the predicting factors for analgesia delivery.

Conclusion

The overall practice of pain management in Gondar University Specialized Hospital Emergency Department was not adequate. Therefore, it is vital to implement an objective pain assessment method and documentation of the pain severity to improve pain management practice.

État des lieux de la prise en charge de la douleur

Le concept d’oligoanalgésie en structure d’urgences reste une réalité en France comme dans de nombreux pays qui publient sur le sujet. Les motifs de cette oligoanalgésie sont multiples, le plus souvent liés à des contraintes organisationnelles plus que médicales. Les solutions existent, et la douleur aiguë persistante ne doit plus être une fatalité en structure d’urgences. L’analyse des raisons de l’oligoanalgésie avec des audits ciblés et la mise en place de protocoles thérapeutiques locaux sont des prérequis à l’amélioration de la prise en charge. Les nouveaux enjeux de la médecine d’urgence, liés à l’augmentation constante de la sollicitation, mais également en lien avec l’évolution des techniques médicales et des compétences des équipes médicales et soignantes, donnent de nouvelles perspectives pour améliorer la qualité–sécurité de la prise en charge de la douleur en structure d’urgences.

Reliability in the process of care during emergency general surgical admission: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Emergency general surgery (EGS) is responsible for 80-90% of surgical in-hospital deaths and the early management of these unwell patients is critical to improving outcomes. Unfortunately care for EGS patients is often fragmented and important care processes are frequently omitted.

METHODS

This study aimed to define a group of important processes during EGS admission and assess their reliability. Literature review and semi-structured interviews were used to define a draft list of processes, which was refined and validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. A prospective cohort study of the 22 included processes was performed in 315 patients across 5 acute hospitals.

RESULTS

Prospective study of the 22 selected processes demonstrated omission of 1130/5668 (19.9%) processes. Only 6 (1.9%) patients had all relevant processes performed correctly. Administration of oxygen to hypoxic patients (82/129, 64%), consultant review (202/313, 65%) and administration of antibiotics within 3 h for patients with severe sepsis (41/60, 68%) were performed particularly poorly. There were significant differences in the mean number of omissions per patient between hospitals (

ANOVA

F = 11.008, p < 0.001) and this was strongly correlated with hospitals' median length of stay (Spearman's rho = 0.975, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Reliability of admissions processes in this study was poor, with significant variability between hospitals. It is likely that improvements in process reliability would enhance EGS patients' outcomes. This will require engagement of the entire surgical team and the implementation of multiple interventions to improve the effectiveness of the admission phase of care.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (12 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2014), EMBASE (1980 to September 2014), CINAHL (1937 to November 2012), AMED (1985 to November 2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to November 2012), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), and SPORTDiscus (1985 to November 2012), plus internet search engines, trial registries and other databases. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of retrieved studies and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon or muscle occurring up to 48 hours prior to inclusion in the study) and comparing oral NSAID versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, with a total of 2144 participants. Two studies included children only. The other 14 studies included predominantly young adults, of whom over 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, one was at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, and four were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. The evidence was usually either low quality or very low quality, reflecting study limitations, indirectness such from as suboptimal dosing of single comparators, imprecision, or one or more of these. Thus we are either uncertain or very uncertain of the estimates.Nine studies, involving 991 participants, compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. While tending to favour paracetamol, there was a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups in pain at less than 24 hours (377 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), at days 1 to 3 (431 participants, 4 studies; low quality), and at day 7 or over (467 participants, 4 studies; low quality). A similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (86 participants, 1 study; very low quality) and at day 7 or over (77 participants, 1 study; low quality). There was little difference between the two groups in return to function at day 7 or over (316 participants, 3 studies; very low quality): based on an assumed recovery of function of 804 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 8 fewer per 1000 recovered in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) 80 fewer to 73 more). There was low-quality evidence of a lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in the paracetamol group: based on an assumed risk of gastrointestinal adverse events of 16 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 13 more participants per 1000 had a gastrointestinal adverse event in the NSAID group (95% CI 0 to 35 more).Four studies, involving 958 participants, compared NSAIDs with opioids. Since a study of a selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID (valdecoxib) that was subsequently withdrawn from the market dominates the evidence for this comparison (706 participants included in the analyses for pain, function and gastrointestinal adverse events), the applicability of these results is in doubt and we give only a brief summary. There was low quality evidence for a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups regarding pain at less than 24 hours, at days 4 to 6, and at day 7. Evidence from single studies showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups for swelling at day 3 (68 participants) and day 10 (84 participants). Return to function at day 7 or over favoured the NSAID group (low-quality), and there were fewer gastrointestinal adverse events in the selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID group (very low quality).Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is partly in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. While the point estimates favoured NSAID, the very low-quality evidence did not show a difference between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day 1 (51 participants, 1 study), day 3 (149 participants, 2 studies), or day 7 (138 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (reported in two studies) and at day 7 (reported in two studies), in return to function at day 7 (89 participants, 1 study), and in gastrointestinal adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies).No studies compared NSAIDs with complementary and alternative medicines, and no study reported re-injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is generally low- or very low-quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important difference in analgesic efficacy between NSAIDs and other oral analgesics. There is low-quality evidence of more gastrointestinal adverse effects with non-selective NSAID compared with paracetamol. There is low- or very low-quality evidence of better function and fewer adverse events with NSAIDs compared with opioid-containing analgesics; however, one study dominated this evidence using a now unavailable COX-2 selective NSAID and is of uncertain applicability. Further research is required to determine whether there is any difference in return to function or adverse effects between both non-selective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs versus paracetamol.

Treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency room: a systematic review of the literature

Appropriate pain therapy prior to diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain remains controversial. Several recent studies have demonstrated that pain therapy does not negatively influence either the diagnosis or subsequent treatment of these patients; however, current practice patterns continue to favour withholding pain medication prior to diagnosis and surgical treatment decision. A systematic review of PubMed, Web-of-Science and The-Cochrane-Library from 1929 to 2011 was carried out using the key words of 'acute', 'abdomen', 'pain', 'emergency' as well as different pain drugs in use, revealed 84 papers. The results of the literature review were incorporated into six sections to describe management of acute abdominal pain: (1) Physiology of Pain; (2) Common Aetiologies of Abdominal Pain; (3) Pre-diagnostic Analgesia; (4) Pain Therapy for Acute Abdominal Pain; (5) Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain in Special Patient Populations; and (6) Ethical and Medico-legal Considerations in Current Analgesia Practices. A comprehensive algorithm for analgesia for acute abdominal pain in the general adult population was developed. A review of the literature of common aetiologies and management of acute abdominal pain in the general adult population and special patient populations seen in the emergency room revealed that intravenous administration of paracetamol, dipyrone or piritramide are currently the analgesics of choice in this clinical setting. Combinations of non-opioids and opioids should be administered in patients with moderate, severe or extreme pain, adjusting the treatment on the basis of repeated pain assessment, which improves overall pain management.

Approach to acute abdominal pain

Evaluation of the emergency department patient with acute abdominal pain may be challenging. Many factors can obscure the clinical findings leading to incorrect diagnosis and subsequent adverse outcomes. Clinicians must consider multiple diagnoses with limited time and information, giving priority to life-threatening conditions that require expeditious management to avoid morbidity and mortality. This article seeks to provide the clinician with the clinical tools to achieve these goals by reviewing the anatomic and physiological basis of abdominal pain and key components of the history and the physical examination. In addition, this article discusses the approach to unstable patients with abdominal pain.

Respiratory distress and chest pain: a perforated peptic ulcer with an unusual presentation

Background

Dyspnea and chest pain are common presenting complaints to the ED, and coupled together can present a challenging diagnostic dilemma in patients in extremis. A thoughtful evaluation is required, giving due diligence to the immediate life threats as well as multiple etiologies which can cause serious morbidity. A perforated peptic ulcer is one such possibility and requires rapid diagnosis and prompt intervention to avoid the associated high risk of morbidity and mortality.

Method

We present a case report of a 54 year old man with respiratory distress and chest pain as the initial Emergency Department presentation of a perforated duodenal ulcer.

Results

We discuss an unusual presentation of a perforated duodenal ulcer that was recognized in the emergency department and treated promptly. The patient was surgically treated immediately, had a prolonged and complicated post-operative course, but is ultimately doing well. We also provide a brief literature review of the risk factors, imaging choices, and management decision required to treat a perforated ulcer.

Conclusions

Perforated ulcers can have highly varied presentations and are occasionally difficult to diagnose in a complicated patient. Knowledge of the risk factors and a thorough history and physical can point to the diagnosis, but timely and appropriate imaging is often required because delays in diagnosis and treatment lead to poor outcomes. Early administration of antibiotics and immediate surgical repair are necessary to limit morbidity and mortality.

Administration of analgesics in patients with acute abdominal pain: a survey of the practice of doctors in a developing country

Background

Analgesic use, particularly opioids in the emergency situation in patients with acute abdominal pain, generally has been avoided in the past; however, newer evidence has shown that the practice should be encouraged. In spite of this, many physicians still withhold analgesics in this clinical situation.

Aims

The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and practice of Nigerian doctors regarding the use of analgesics for patients with acute abdominal pain during the initial evaluation.

Methods

A one-page survey was distributed by two of the authors to Nigerian doctors from different parts of the country during conferences, seminars and meetings on different occasions in 2007. Demographic data and information regarding medical specialty, post-qualification experience, analgesic use in acute abdominal pain, and effects on diagnosis and outcome were included. The respondents were then classed into two sets of two groups using specialty (surgical and non-surgical) and post-qualification experience (less than 10 years, “less experienced;” over 10 years, “experienced”).

Results

There were 539 respondents. The male:female ratio was 12:1. Of the respondents, 50.4% would withhold analgesics if the diagnosis was unclear, and a further 12% would do the same if a surgical opinion was required. Reasons for withholding analgesics were (1) believing that analgesics interfered with evolution of signs (84.4%), (2) believing that the diagnosis would be impaired (77.9%) and (3) believing that analgesics would have an adverse effect on outcome (54.5%). Specialty or length of post-qualification experience did not significantly influence this practice (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The study has shown that the dogma that analgesics are harmful in patients with acute abdominal pain is still firmly entrenched in the practice of the surveyed Nigerian doctors. This belief is not significantly affected by specialty or post-qualification experience.