Current treatments for post-injury movement-evoked pain are inadequate. Non-opioids may complement opioids, which preferentially reduce spontaneous pain, but most have incomplete efficacy as single agents. This trial evaluates efficacy of a gabapentin-rofecoxib combination following hysterectomy. In addition to IV-PCA morphine, 110 patients received either placebo, gabapentin (1800 mg/day), rofecoxib (50 mg/day) or a gabapentin-rofecoxib combination (1800/50 mg/day) starting 1 h pre-operatively for 72 h. Outcomes included pain at rest, evoked by sitting, peak expiration and cough, morphine consumption and peak expiratory flow (PEF). For placebo, gabapentin, rofecoxib and combination, 24 h pain (100 mm VAS) was: at rest-23.6 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 13.8, 14.4 and 12.1; during cough-50.7 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 41.5, 44.8 and 30.8; 48 h morphine consumption (mg) was: 130.4 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 81.7, 75.6 and 57.2 (P<0.05 vs. gabapentin and rofecoxib) and 48 h PEF (% baseline) was: 63.9 (P<0.05 vs. all treatments), 77.2, 76.7 and 87.5 (P<0.05 vs. gabapentin and rofecoxib). Adverse effects were similar in all groups except sedation which was more frequent with gabapentin. Combination and rofecoxib reduced pain interference with movement, mood and sleep (P<0.05) and combination was superior to gabapentin for all these three (P<0.05). These data suggest that a gabapentin-rofecoxib combination is superior to either single agent for postoperative pain. Other benefits include opioid sparing, reduced interference with movement, mood and sleep and increased PEF suggesting accelerated pulmonary recovery. Future research should identify optimal dose-ratios for this and other analgesic combinations.
Thematic analysis is a widely cited method for analyzing qualitative data. As a team of graduate students, we sought to explore methods of data analysis that were grounded in qualitative philosophies and aligned with our orientation as applied health researchers. We identified reflexive thematic analysis, developed by Braun and Clarke, as an interpretive method firmly situated within a qualitative paradigm that would also have broad applicability within a range of qualitative health research designs. In this approach to analysis, the subjectivity of the researcher is recognized and viewed not as problematic but instead valued as integral to the analysis process. We therefore elected to explore reflexive thematic analysis, advance and apply our analytic skills in applied qualitative health research, and provide direction and technique for researchers interested in this method of analysis. In this paper, we describe how a multidisciplinary graduate student group of applied health researchers utilized Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Specifically, we explore and describe our team’s process of data analysis used to analyze focus group data from a study exploring postnatal care referral behavior by traditional birth attendants in Nigeria. This paper illustrates our experience in applying the six phases of reflexive thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke: (1) familiarizing oneself with the data, (2) generating codes, (3) constructing themes, (4) reviewing potential themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. We highlight our experiences through each phase, outline strategies to support analytic quality, and share practical activities to guide the use of reflexive thematic analysis within an applied health research context and when working within research teams.
Although nausea was reduced with combination therapy, this trial provides little or no support for the combined use of meloxicam and gabapentin for pain relief on the day of surgery. This suggests that perioperative analgesic polypharmacy may not always be necessary or appropriate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.