MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932185501 · doi:10.1111/anae.14657

Intra‐operative analgesia with remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine: a systematic review and meta‐analysis with trial sequential analysis

2019· review· en· W2932185501 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersRigshospitaletSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidineRemifentanilMeta-analysisAnesthesiaInternal medicineSedationPropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Intra‐operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra‐operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta‐analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta‐analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0–10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty‐one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95% CI ) of −0.7 (−1.2 to −0.2), I 2 = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra‐operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.283 · 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