MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387840762 · doi:10.1111/anae.16148

Effect of nociception level index‐guided intra‐operative analgesia on early postoperative pain and opioid consumption: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4387840762 on OpenAlexaff
Helmar Bornemann‐Cimenti, Kordula Lang-Illievich, Kateryna Kovalevska, Connor T. A. Brenna, Christoph Klivinyi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisNociceptionAnesthesiaOpioidAnalgesicPostoperative nausea and vomitingNauseaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute postoperative pain remains a critical treatment priority and has prompted a search for technologies and techniques to assist with intra-operative analgesic monitoring and management. Anaesthetists traditionally rely on clinical judgement to guide intra-operative analgesia, but several emerging technologies such as the nociception level index herald the possibility of routine intra-operative analgesia monitoring. However, the impact of devices like nociception level index on postoperative outcomes has not been proven. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles which compared nociception level index-guided analgesia to standard care. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and opioid consumption during the first 60-120 min after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Ten studies, collectively including 662 patients and published between 2019 and 2023, met inclusion criteria for both the qualitative systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Risk of methodological bias was generally low or unclear, and six studies reported a significant conflict of interest relevant to their findings. Our meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. It found statistically significant benefits of nociception level index-guided analgesia for early postoperative pain (mean (95%CI) difference -0.46 (-0.88 to -0.03) on an 11-point scale, p = 0.03), and opioid requirement (mean (95%CI) difference -1.04 (-1.94 to -0.15) mg intravenous morphine equivalent, p = 0.02). Our meta-analysis of the current literature finds that nociception level index-guided analgesia statistically significantly reduces reported postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption but fails to show clinically relevant outcomes. We found no evidence that nociception level index-guided analgesia affected postoperative nausea and vomiting nor duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.051
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207