← Human Trials & Peer-Reviewed Studies
Does metoclopramide supplement postoperative analgesia using patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery?
Plain-language guide to PMID 9338902 (1997): double-blind randomized controlled trial of Metoclopramide and Morphine in 32 patients.
Key Facts
- PMID
- 9338902
- Journal
- Regional anesthesia
- Year
- 1997
- Study type
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Authors
- Danzer BI et al. (5 authors)
- DOI
- 10.1016/s1098-7339(97)80027-2
What This Study Did, in Plain Language
What Was Tested
This randomized controlled trial looks at Metoclopramide and Morphine.
If metoclopramide were found to be an analgesic adjunct in these patients, it would offer an additional impetus for its routine use.
Who Took Part
According to the abstract, 32 patients were involved.
By PubMed's age tags, the people studied were adults, women only.
After elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia, 32 patients were monitored for initial and 24-hour postoperative morphine requirements via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia.
These patients were divided into two groups.
How the Study Was Run
The design is described as randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled.
Because people in this Metoclopramide study were split into groups at random, differences between the groups are less likely to reflect who happened to join each one.
As a double-blind Metoclopramide study, the assignments were hidden from both participants and investigators until the end.
The comparison arm used a placebo, so changes seen with Metoclopramide could be set against what happens without it.
What Was Measured
Topics PubMed links to this paper include Analgesia, Patient-Controlled, Analgesics, Opioid, Antiemetics, Cesarean Section, Metoclopramide, Morphine and Nausea.
What This Means in Plain Language
The paper is a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of Metoclopramide and Morphine in 32 patients.
With fewer than 40 people, it is a small study, so it is better read as an early signal for further research than as a settled answer.
Results are reported in around 2 sentences of the abstract; we leave them to the paper itself rather than summarise them.
The publication is from 1997 (Regional anesthesia), a journal based in United States.
More context: all human trials.
Related Pages
Source: PubMed record. This explanation is written by PeptideWhiz from the public record. For research and education only. Not medical advice; no dosing information is given.