Skip to main content
. 2014 Jan 28;2014(1):CD009633. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009633.pub2

Summary of findings 4. High dose clonidine compared to low dose clonidine for postoperative analgesia in children.

High dose clonidine compared to low dose clonidine for postoperative analgesia in children
Patient or population: patients with postoperative pain
 Settings: paediatric surgery
 Intervention: high dose clonidine
 Comparison: low dose clonidine
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of Participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Low dose clonidine High dose clonidine
Number requiring additional analgesia required postoperatively ‐ all studies 644 per 1000 316 per 1000 
 (142 to 715) RR 0.49 
 (0.22 to 1.11) 90
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
Number requiring additional analgesia required postoperatively ‐ moderate quality studies 867 per 1000 329 per 1000 
 (199 to 563) RR 0.38 
 (0.23 to 0.65) 60
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low3,4  
Postoperative pain score   The mean postoperative pain score in the intervention groups was
 1.25 standard deviations lower 
 (1.8 to 0.69 lower)   60
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low3,4 SMD ‐1.25 (‐1.8 to ‐0.69)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Missing data on methods for randomization and concealment for both studies, and on blinding and reporting rates for Cao 2009.
 2 Low total numbers, especially in Cao 2009 study.
 3 Missing information on randomization and allocation concealment methods.
 4 Single, small study