Clinical Decision Making in Renal Pain Management
Damir Aganovic, Alen Prcic, Benjamin Kulovac, Osman Hadziosmanovic
Acta Inform Med. 2012; 20(1): 18-20
Objectives: To determine the optimal medication for the treatment of renal colic using evidence based medicine (EBM) parameters (RR, ARR, NNT, NNH, ARI, RRI). Sample and Methodology: During 2010, an ITT study was conducted on 400 outpatients of the Sarajevo University Clinical Center Urology Clinic in order to investigate renal colic pain relief drugs. Each group consisting of 100 patients was administered either Metamizol amp. i.v., or Diclofenac amp. i.m., or Butylscopolamine amp. i.v., while 100 patients belonged to the placebo group that was given distilled water (aqua redestilata). All patients completed visual analogue pain scale (VAPS) from 0 to 10 prior to and after the treatment. Results: Using EBM parameters Diclofenac Na and Metamizol were shown to be the most efficient in the treatment of renal colic. In these two groups, relative risk (RR) was 21 and 8,5% respectively; Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) was 74 and 86% respectively, and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) was 1 for both groups, while chi-squared (X2) test has shown that there is no statistically significant difference between these two drugs when it comes to their effect. In the Butylscopolamine group, RR was 81; ARR 18%, while NNT was 5. With respect to side effects, only in his group it was shown that Relative Risk Increase (RRI) was 84, ARI 83%, while Number Needed to Harm (NNH) was 2. Conclusion: The most optimal medication for the treatment of renal colic according to EBM parameters is Diclofenac Na, followed by Metamizol. Butylscopolamine is not recommended for the treatment of renal colic.
1. Marshall, L.S., Urinary Stone Disease, in Tanagho, E.A., McAninch, J.W., Smith’s General Urology, 16 th edition, Lange Medical Book, San Francisco, 2004.
2. Van Laecke E, Oosterlinck W. Physiopathology of renal colic and the therapeutic consequences, Acta Urologica Belgica. 1994, 62: 15-18.
3. Heid F, Jage J. The treatment of pain in urology, BJU International, 2002, 90: 481-488.
4. Jamison RN, Gracely RH. et al., Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: A randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers, Pain. 2002, 99: 341-347.
5. Lorig KR, Sobel DS. et al., Effect of a Self-Management Program on Patients with Chronic Disease, Eff. Clin. Pract. 2001, 4: 256-262.
6. Workman EA, Hubbard JR. et al., Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders and Predictors of Pain Management Program Success in Patients With Chronic Pain, Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2002, 4: 137-140.
7. Marques AP, Rhoden L. et al, Pain Evaluation of Patients with Fibromyalgia, Osteoarthritis, and Low Back Pain, Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med. S. Paolo, 2001, 56(1): 5-10.
8. Cohen AM, Stavri PZ. A categorisation and analysis of the criticisms of Evidence-Based Medicine, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2004, 73: 35-43.
9. Adler RH, Uexkull T. et al., The two faces of medical evidence, Swiss Med Wkly,2002, 132: 397-400.
10. Sackett DL, Strauss SE. et al., Evidence Based Medicine, How to Practice and Teach EBM, second edition, Churchill Livingstone, London, 2000.
11. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC. et al., Evidence Based Medicine: what it is and what it isn’t, BMJ. 1996, 312: 71-72.
12. Druss B. Evidence based medicine: does it make a difference?, BMJ, 2005, 330: 92.
13. Holdgate A, Pollock T. Systematic review of the relative efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of acute renal colic, BMJ. 2004: