We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).

BACKGROUND: The integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) is increasingly considered in the development of healthcare structures. This fact is also recognised in the e-Health Act. In this context, personal health records (PHR) have a specific meaning. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview on utilization, barriers and possible effects on the implementation of PHR.
METHODS: This analysis is based on a literature search in Web of Science (Core Collection) (01/2000 to 12/2014) using the following terms: \"personal health record\", \"personal medical record\", \"personal electronic health record\", \"interpersonal health record\", \"personally controlled health record\".
RESULTS: In general, patients have positive attitudes towards the electronic exchange of personal health information (PHI) on a PHR. Even the sharing of PHI with physicians, health professionals, family and friends appears to be an option for many patients. Physicians also see the potential of a PHR on the internet, but they are more critical than patients. Barriers exist towards the use of complex and non-intuitive PHR concepts along with technical faults and the lack of functionality. From the physicians\' perspective, prejudices concerning the use of PHR have not been confirmed and, other than previously expected, the workload has not increased so much. However, clinical outcomes have so far been rather moderate. Stronger effects may be achieved by embedding the PHR in a broader healthcare concept.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of chronic disease, a connected PHR (patient-controlled, cross-sectoral, and interoperable) can be a valuable tool for organizing healthcare for patients. To take full effect, the development of such systems should focus on patients and their families as well as on physicians and other healthcare professionals. Whether the e-Health Act is a step in the right direction will have to be established by future analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and quantitative analysis to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) against other available patient controlled analgesia (PCA) options for post-operative analgesia.
METHODS: An SLR was conducted for studies published between 2004 and 2016. Due to study heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were conducted controlling for differences in imputation methods for missing values, baseline pain severity, and type of surgery. Where sufficient data was available, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was performed.
RESULTS: The MTC and subgroup analyses used 13 studies. In direct meta-analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with intravenous (IV) PCA (morphine) at 24 hours for the patient global assessment (PGA) scores of \"good\" or \"excellent\". For the Pain Intensity Score, there were numerical but not statistically significant differences in favor of the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) and the patient controlled transdermal system (PCTS) (fentanyl) in the MTC at 6 hours (standardized mean difference -0.27 [credible interval -2.78, 2.09] and -0.36 [-3.89, 3.03], respectively). The onset of pain relief was earlier with the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) as shown by the Pain Intensity Difference. Likewise, the onset was earlier compared with PCTS (fentanyl) where data was available. There was a significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with IV PCA (morphine) and with PCTS (fentanyl) for any adverse event, and numerical improvements for withdrawals due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that SSTS is an option for non-invasive management of moderate-to-severe post-operative pain which can be more effective, faster in onset and better tolerated than IV PCA (morphine) and PCTS (fentanyl).