Evidence Hub

Pharmacologic Management of Acute Pain in Children: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Olejnik L, Lima JP, Sadeghirad B, Busse JW, Florez ID, Ali S, Bunker J, Jomaa D et al.

JAMA pediatrics, 2025

4,935 participants

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Several pharmacologic options exist for the management of acute pediatric pain; however, their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy for acute pediatric pain through a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus to October 2023.

STUDY SELECTION: Trials that enrolled children (aged <18 years) with acute pain and randomized them to receive a pharmacologic analgesic vs an alternate analgesic or placebo were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently reviewed abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of eligible trials. A frequentist random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses, and the certainty of evidence was assessed for treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were pain severity (range, 0-10 cm using a visual analog scale; minimally important difference [MID], 1 cm), need for rescue medication, symptom relief, and adverse drug events.

RESULTS: A total of 41 trials involving 4935 children were included. High- to moderate-certainty evidence found that compared with placebo, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (weighted mean difference [WMD], -1.29; 95% CI, -1.89 to -0.70; modeled risk difference [RD] for achieving…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,935 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free