Intravenous lidocaine to prevent postoperative airway complications in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. lidocaine administration during the perioperative period to prevent cough and other airway complications. METHODS: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs comparing the perioperative use of i.v. lidocaine with a control group in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. The RCTs were assessed using risk-of-bias assessment, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: In 16 trials (n=1516), the administration of i.v. lidocaine compared with placebo or no treatment led to large reductions in post-extubation cough (risk ratio [RR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.86) and in postoperative sore throat at 1 h (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32-0.67). There was no difference in incidence of laryngospasm (risk difference [RD]: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03) or incidence of adverse events related to the use of lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS: The use of i.v. lidocaine perioperatively decreased airway complications, including coughing and sore throat. There was no associated increased risk of harm.

Anesthesia interventions that alter perioperative mortality: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: With over 230 million surgical procedures performed annually worldwide, better application of evidence in anesthesia and perioperative medicine may reduce widespread variation in clinical practice and improve patient care. However, a comprehensive summary of the complete available evidence has yet to be conducted. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia interventions and their potential impact on patient mortality, to inform future knowledge translation and ultimately improve perioperative clinical practice. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2015. Study inclusion criteria were adult patients, surgical procedures requiring anesthesia, perioperative intervention conducted/organized by a professional with training in anesthesia, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and patient mortality as an outcome. Studies were screened for inclusion, and data was extracted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically. RESULTS: Among the 10,505 publications identified, 369 RCTs (n = 147,326 patients) met the eligibility criteria. While 15 intervention themes were identified, only 7 themes (39 studies) had a significant impact on mortality: pharmacotherapy (n = 23), nutritional (n = 3), transfusion (n = 4), ventilation (n = 5), glucose control (n = 1), medical device (n = 2), and dialysis (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: By mapping intervention themes, this scoping review has identified areas requiring further systematic investigation given their potential value for reducing patient mortality as well as areas where continued investment may not be cost-effective given limited evidence for improving survival. This is a key starting point for future knowledge translation to optimize anesthesia practice.

References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature.

OBJECTIVES: To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web of Science. DATA SOURCES: To identify health science journals, results were refined using Ulrich's database, selecting for citations from journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase. Using Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, 2011 impact factors were collected for all journals included in the search. DATA EXTRACTION: Resulting citations were thematically coded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: 1433 full text articles from 1008 journals indexed in Medline, PubMed, or Embase with 2049 Wikipedia citations were accessed. The frequency of Wikipedia citations has increased over time; most citations occurred after December 2010. More than half of the citations were coded as definitions (n = 648; 31.6%) or descriptions (n=482; 23.5%). Citations were not limited to journals with a low or no impact factor; the search found Wikipedia citations in many journals with high impact factors. CONCLUSIONS: Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia.