Karina Tapinova

Dr. Karina Tapinova

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

5Years (2022-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
12 January 2024 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DVDmitriy Viderman
Dmitriy Viderman
FNFatima Nabidollayeva
Fatima Nabidollayeva
MAMina Aubakirova
Mina Aubakirova
NSNurzhamal Sadir
Nurzhamal Sadir
KTKarina Tapinova
Karina Tapinova
YAYerkin Abdildin
Yerkin Abdildin
This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in postoperative acute pain control. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched on 1–8 December 2022, for randomized controlled trials on the analgesic effects of TENS. The outcomes were pain intensity and opioid use (primary), and postoperative (PO) adverse events, blood pressure, and the duration of hospital stay (secondary); PROSPERO CRD42022333335. A total of 40 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Pain intensity at rest and during coughing for all types of surgeries combined was lower in the TENS group (standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.51 [−0.61, −0.41], p < 0.00001, 29 studies, and −1.28 [−2.46, −0.09], p-value = 0.03, six studies, respectively). There was a statistically significant decrease in morphine requirements, as well as in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and pruritus. There was no difference between the groups in postoperative pain intensity during walking, in blood pressure, and only a borderline difference in the length of hospital stay. The subgroup analysis by surgery type did not show significant differences between the groups in pain severity at rest. Thus, TENS has a potential for pain control and postoperative recovery outcomes.

26 July 2023 in Lasers in Medical Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
YAYerkin Abdildin
Yerkin Abdildin
KTKarina Tapinova
Karina Tapinova
NJNursultan Jyeniskhan
Nursultan Jyeniskhan
DVDmitriy Viderman
Dmitriy Viderman

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DVDmitriy Viderman
Dmitriy Viderman
KTKarina Tapinova
Karina Tapinova
FNFatima Nabidollayeva
Fatima Nabidollayeva
RTRamil Tankacheev
Ramil Tankacheev
YAYerkin Abdildin
Yerkin Abdildin
Objective: To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery. Methods: We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system. Results: Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was −0.00 [−0.79, 0.78], p-value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [−0.02, 0.88], p-value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [−0.37, 0.89], p-value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], p-value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], p-value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA. Conclusions: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.

28 February 2024 in Acute and Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
YAYerkin Abdildin
Yerkin Abdildin
KTKarina Tapinova
Karina Tapinova
ANAssel Nemerenova
Assel Nemerenova
DVDmitriy Viderman
Dmitriy Viderman
Background: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of ketamine in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients.Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; the search was performed initially in January but was repeated in December of 2023. We focused on ICU patients of any age. We included studies that compared ketamine with other traditional agents used in the ICU. We synthesized evidence using RevMan v5.4 and presented the results as forest plots. We also used trial sequential analysis (TSA) software v. 0.9.5.10 Beta and presented results as TSA plots. For synthesizing results, we used a random-effects model and reported differences in outcomes of two groups in terms of mean difference (MD), standardized MD, and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs. Our outcomes were mortality, pain, opioid and midazolam requirements, delirium rates, and ICU length of stay.Results: Twelve RCTs involving 805 ICU patients (ketamine group, n=398; control group, n=407) were included in the meta-analysis. The ketamine group was not superior to the control group in terms of mortality (in five studies with 318 patients), pain (two studies with 129 patients), mean and cumulative opioid consumption (six studies with 494 patients), midazolam consumption (six studies with 304 patients), and ICU length of stay (three studies with 270 patients). However, the model favored the ketamine group over the control group in delirium rate (four studies with 358 patients). This result is significant in terms of conventional boundaries (alpha=5%) but is not robust in sequential analysis. The applicability of the findings is limited by the small number of patients pooled for each outcome.Conclusions: Our meta-analysis did not demonstrate differences between ketamine and control groups regarding any outcome except delirium rate, where the model favored the ketamine group over the control group. However, this result is not robust as sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis suggest that more RCTs should be conducted in the future.

19 February 2025 in Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
DVDmitriy Viderman
Dmitriy Viderman
KTKarina Tapinova
Karina Tapinova
AAAnuar Aryngazin
Anuar Aryngazin
MAMina Aubakirova
Mina Aubakirova
YAYerkin Abdildin
Yerkin Abdildin
The objective of the study was to assess the analgesic effects of dexamethasone (DEX) added to peripheral nerve block in knee surgery. We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The latest search was done on September 11, 2024. Search terms included knee surgery, regional anesthesia, and DEX. Data extraction, statistical analysis, and risk of bias assessment followed established protocols. Seven RCTs with 551 patients were included. In the DEX 4 mg group, no reduction of pain at rest was found. However, for the DEX 8 mg group, pain management at rest was more effective; the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was –0.34 [–0.50, –0.18]. For pain with movement, the model favors the DEX 4 mg group (MD with 95% CI was –1.03 [–1.84, –0.22]). Only one study reported the differences in pain intensity scores with movement between the DEX 8 mg and control groups. For morphine consumption, the model did not reveal any reduction in the DEX 4 mg group (MD –0.68 [–1.87, 0.5]) or DEX 8 mg group (MD –10.44 [–23.92, 3.03]). Pain with movement may be reduced with a lower dose, and pain without movement with a higher dose of DEX.