Comparison of the efficacy of diclofenac, acupuncture, and acetaminophen in the treatment of renal colic

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKaynar, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorKoyuncu, Ferudun
dc.contributor.authorBuldu, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorTekinarslan, Erdem
dc.contributor.authorTepeler, Abdulkadir
dc.contributor.authorKaratag, Tuna
dc.contributor.authorIstanbulluoglu, Mustafa Okan
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T19:01:32Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T19:01:32Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective is to compare the analgesic effects of diclofenac, acetaminophen, and acupuncture in urolithiasis-driven renal colic pain relief. Methods: Renal colic patients were divided randomly into 3 groups. Patients in group I (n = 40) were treated with intravenous acetaminophen, those in group II (n = 41) with acupuncture, and those in group III (n = 40) with a 75-mg intramuscular injection diclofenac sodium. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS) were used to assess pain intensity after 10, 30, 60, and 120 minutes. Results: No significant differences in baseline VAS or VRS were found with regard to age or sex. After 10 minutes, all 3 groups experienced a significant decrease in VAS and VRS scores, with the most drastic decrease occurring in group II. After 30 minutes, there was a significantly higher decrease in group III than in group I (P=.001). After 60 minutes, mean VAS scores of groups I and III (P=.753) were similar. The mean VAS score of group III was lower than that of group II (P=.013). After 120 minutes, the difference in the VAS scores was (P=.000) between groups I and II and between groups II and III. Yet, the VAS evaluation made after 120 minutes revealed statistically similar outcomes for groups I and III (P=.488). The statistical findings for VRS evaluations made after 10, 30, 60, and 120 were similar to those for VAS. Conclusions: In renal colic patients with a possible nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and acetaminophen side effect risk, acupuncture emerges as an alternative treatment modality. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.033en_US
dc.identifier.endpage753en_US
dc.identifier.issn0735-6757en_US
dc.identifier.issn1532-8171en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25827597en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage749en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.033
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/31958
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000356601400002en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherW B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INCen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINEen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.titleComparison of the efficacy of diclofenac, acupuncture, and acetaminophen in the treatment of renal colicen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu