METHODS: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071899). A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and EBSCOhost databases until June 2017 with no language restriction. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of oral premedications, whether given alone or in combination, compared with other agents, placebo, or no treatment in adult patients before NSRCT for postoperative pain were included. Nonintervention studies, nonendodontic studies, animal studies, and reviews were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pair-wise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and quality of evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was performed.
RESULTS: Eleven studies comparing pharmacologic groups of medications were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisolone 30-40 mg) was ranked best for reducing postoperative pain (median difference [MD] = -18.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), -32.90 to -3.37] for the pain score at 6 hours; MD = -22.17 [95% CI, -36.03 to -8.32] for the pain score at 12 hours; and MD = -21.50 [95% CI, -37.95 to -5.06] for the pain score at 24 hours). However, the evidence was very low (6 and 24 hours) to moderate quality (12 hours). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were ranked least among the medications, and the quality of this evidence was very low. Additional analysis based on the chemical name showed that sulindac, ketorolac, and ibuprofen significantly reduced pain at 6 hours, whereas piroxicam and prednisolone significantly reduced the pain at 12 and 24 hours. Etodolac was found to be least effective in reducing pain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited and low-quality evidence, oral premedication with piroxicam or prednisolone could be recommended for controlling postoperative pain after NSRCT. However, more trials are warranted to confirm the results with a higher quality of evidence.
Methods: In a prospective study, colonoscopy was performed on 2,469 consecutive patients. Biopsies were taken from the terminal ileum and ascending, transverse, descending and sigmoid colon in all patients.
Results: Sixty-four of the 2,469 patients (2.6%) had eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Only five of the 64 patients (7.8%) with eosinophilic gastroenteritis had endoscopic mucosal abnormalities during colonoscopy. Six of these 64 patients (9.4%) had severe disease at presentation, and seven of these 64 patients (10.9%) required systemic steroid treatment. An elevated absolute peripheral eosinophil count was independently associated with severe disease at presentation (4/6 [66.7%] vs 3/58 [5.2%], p=0.005; odds ratio [OR], 25.320; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.628 to 243.910), and severe disease at the time of presentation was independently associated with the use of systemic steroid treatment (6/7 [85.7%] vs 0/57 [0%], p=0.008; OR, 18.021; 95% CI, 2.163 to 150.152).
Conclusions: The prevalence of eosinophilic gastroenteritis is common, and patients usually present normal-appearing mucosa on colonoscopy. Those with severe disease at presentation usually have a raised absolute peripheral eosinophil count and should be commenced on systemic steroids as an initial therapy.