MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037607981 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003428

Perioperative Use of Gabapentinoids for the Management of Postoperative Acute Pain

2020· letter· en· W3037607981 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Verret, François Lauzier, Ryan Zarychanski, Caroline Perron, Xavier Savard, Anne-Marie Pinard, Guillaume Leblanc, Marie-Joëlle Cossi, Xavier Neveu, Alexis F. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationCARE CanadaCancerCare ManitobaUniversité LavalCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersMax Rady College of Medicine, University of ManitobaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeAcute painPregabalinPain managementAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Widely used for acute pain management, the clinical benefit from perioperative use of gabapentinoids is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the analgesic effect and adverse events with the perioperative use of gabapentinoids in adult patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials studying the use of gabapentinoids in adult patients undergoing surgery were included. The primary outcome was the intensity of postoperative acute pain. Secondary outcomes included the intensity of postoperative subacute pain, incidence of postoperative chronic pain, cumulative opioid use, persistent opioid use, lengths of stay, and adverse events. The clinical significance of the summary estimates was assessed based on established thresholds for minimally important differences. RESULTS: In total, 281 trials (N = 24,682 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, gabapentinoids were associated with a lower postoperative pain intensity (100-point scale) at 6 h (mean difference, -10; 95% CI, -12 to -9), 12 h (mean difference, -9; 95% CI, -10 to -7), 24 h (mean difference, -7; 95% CI, -8 to -6), and 48 h (mean difference, -3; 95% CI, -5 to -1). This effect was not clinically significant ranging below the minimally important difference (10 points out of 100) for each time point. These results were consistent regardless of the type of drug (gabapentin or pregabalin). No effect was observed on pain intensity at 72 h, subacute and chronic pain. The use of gabapentinoids was associated with a lower risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting but with more dizziness and visual disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant analgesic effect for the perioperative use of gabapentinoids was observed. There was also no effect on the prevention of postoperative chronic pain and a greater risk of adverse events. These results do not support the routine use of pregabalin or gabapentin for the management of postoperative pain in adult patients.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations434
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207