MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Multimodal analgesics after adult cardiac surgery; a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4403813382 on OpenAlexaff
Rochelle Wynne, Rebecca M. Jedwab, Kari Hanne Gjeilo, Rosalie Magboo, Mehdi Goudarzi, Sarah McCarthy, Lisa Keeping Burke, Jo Murfin, Tieghan Killackey, Jill Bruneau, Elizabeth J. Phillips, Tracey Bowden, Suzanne Fredericks, Julie Sanders, Ingrid Anne Lie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of NewfoundlandHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryMultimodal therapyMEDLINEIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Moderate to severe pain is frequently reported during the acute recovery phase following adult cardiac surgery. Multimodal analgesics are recommended for adult patients post cardiac surgery, but the optimal combination of multimodal analgesics is unknown. Purpose To synthesise the best available evidence about the effectiveness of multimodal analgesics on pain after adult cardiac surgery. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA-P statement and the published review protocol. Inclusion criteria were full-text papers or abstracts with adequate reporting, in any language, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery that investigated the effect of multimodal postoperative analgesic regimens, compared to a control group. The highest mean level of patient self-reported pain intensity at rest, captured using a validated pain assessment tool, was the primary outcome measure. Results Of 3754 citations identified in the initial search to the 12th of December 2022, there were 1605 duplicates leaving 2149 citations for title and abstract screening, of which 2027 were irrelevant. There were 122 full-text papers assessed and 29 included in the review. Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers in Covidence®. Participants (N = 2360), aged 59.5 + 8.2 years, were primarily male (N = 1561, 66.1%), weighing 78.1 +9.2 kilograms. Risk of bias was high and reporting quality was poor. Pain at rest reported in 18 (62%) studies was 3.5 (SD 1.2) in the control and 2.7 (SD 0.9) in the intervention groups respectively. Nurse-led versus patient-controlled analgesic administration was tested in 14 (48.3%) trials. All trials tested different analgesic combinations, none of which compared a combination of non-opioids, opioid agonist-antagonist agents, or full opioid agonists. Conclusions Poorly managed pain is associated with postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions, and the development of chronic pain. Robust RCTs are urgently needed to inform optimal combinations of multimodal analgesics to optimise patient recovery after adult cardiac surgery.Risk of Bias

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→