Summary
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy, anti-effect of ketamine (intervention) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients during analgesia proceeding and mental illness treatment methods, in comparison with control (midazolam, opioid, saline or placebo). The bibliographic databases Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science were searched from inception to 23 May 2021 for randomized controlled trials, case-control and cohort studies included. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, we calculated the mean difference using the inverse-variance method and the risk ratio with the Mantel–Haenszel method. In all, ten trials with 705 patients were included. Confirmed by meta-analysis, ketamine didn’t increase the prevalence of PTSD by a risk ratio (95 % CI) of 0.86 (0.61 to 1.20), p = 0.38 in 3 trials with 503 patients. Evidence of a difference was found in the PTSD-scales taken between ketamine and control during short durations (months), with a mean difference (95 % CI) of 2.45 (1.33 to 3.58), p < 0.001 in three trials with 65 patients. Another evidence is shown in chronic PTSD (years), with a mean difference (95 % CI) of −3.66 (−7.05 to −0.27), p = 0.03 in three trials with 91 patients. Sub-group analysis underlined the increased benefit of ketamine administration for those in whom the procedure was more than one week in the chronic PTSD group. The adoption of ketamine for the short duration of PTSD is in avoidance, but for chronic PTSD is recommended and, in the opinion of the authors, should be considered as a new therapy in view of its potential to ameliorate arousal, avoidance and dissociative symptoms, neuroticism after trauma needing more animal research and clinical trials.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81773072).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a meta-analysis of published data; therefore no IRB approval required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study (e.g., opinion or dataless paper).
