MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3164591697 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-558680/v1

What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3164591697 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ciara Mitchell, Christopher H. Mitchell, S. J. Cheuk, Ciara O’Donnell, Sohail Bampoe, David Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePacuPerioperativeAnesthesiaPlaceboDexamethasoneGeneral anaesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. Objective To determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia. Methods This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. Results Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤4 hours were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.35, I2 = 81%) and on movement (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.22, I2 = 35 ). In the dexamethasone group 4–24 hour pain scores were less at rest (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.14, I2 = 96) and on movement (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, I2 = 29) and pain scores ≥24 hours were reduced at rest (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.24, I2 = 88) and on movement (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.11, I2 = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I2 = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD -6.66, 95% CI -9.38 to -3.93, I2 = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD -3.82, 95% CI -10.87 to 3.23, I2 = 59%). Conclusions Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0310.051
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicAnesthesia and Pain Management→French-language works237,207→