MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917511632 · doi:10.1111/anae.14582

Analgesic impact of intra‐operative opioids vs. opioid‐free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019· review· en· W2917511632 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Frauenknecht, Kyle R. Kirkham, Alain Jacot-Guillarmod, Éric Albrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineNauseaAnesthesiaPlaceboVomitingOpioidPostoperative nausea and vomitingAnalgesicMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Opioids are administered peri‐operatively for postoperative analgesia, and intra‐operatively to control the sympathetic response to surgical stimuli, frequently as a surrogate for presumed pain. However, opioid use during surgery is a matter of dispute in contemporary practice and carries the risk of side‐effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting. This meta‐analysis investigated whether opioid‐inclusive, compared with opioid‐free anaesthesia, would reduce postoperative pain, without increasing the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The electronic databases Medline and PubMed were searched until June 2018. We included trials investigating pain outcomes and comparing any type of intra‐operative opioid administration with placebo injection or no intra‐operative opioid. Most meta‐analyses were performed using a random effects model. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (analogue scale, 0–10) at two postoperative hours. Our secondary outcomes included the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting within the first 24 postoperative hours and length of stay in the recovery area. Twenty‐three randomised controlled trials, including 1304 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were equivalent in the opioid‐inclusive and opioid‐free groups with a mean difference (95% CI ) of 0.2 (−0.2 to 0.5), I 2 = 83%, p = 0.38 and a high quality of evidence. Similarly, there was high‐quality evidence that the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced in the opioid‐free group, with a risk ratio (95% CI ) of 0.77 (0.61–0.97), I 2 = 16%, p = 0.03 and high‐quality evidence for a similar length of stay in the recovery area, the mean difference (95% CI ) being 0.6 (−8.2 to 9.3), min, I 2 = 60%, p = 0.90. As there is strong evidence that opioid‐inclusive anaesthesia does not reduce postoperative pain, but is associated with more postoperative nausea and vomiting, when compared with opioid‐free anaesthesia, we suggest that anaesthetists should reconsider their intra‐operative opioid choices on a case‐by‐case basis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations358
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207