MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417304398 · doi:10.1007/s40122-025-00804-9

Association Between Smoking and Opioid Requirement and Pain Intensity in the Early Postoperative Period: A Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W4417304398 on OpenAlexaff
Istvan-Szilard Szilagyi, Torsten Ullrich, Christoph Klivinyi, Kordula Lang-Illievich, Connor T. A. Brenna, Brigitte Messerer, Helmar Bornemann‐Cimenti

Bibliographic record

VenuePain and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpioidPostoperative painAssociation (psychology)Intensity (physics)Pain controlPain managementSmoke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective postoperative pain management is crucial for patient recovery and satisfaction. Smoking may impact pain perception and analgesic requirements, but its effects on postoperative opioid needs remain unclear. The objective of this study was to determine whether patients who smoke have different postoperative opioid requirements compared to nonsmokers in the first 24 and 48 h after surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing postoperative opioid use between smokers and nonsmokers. A comprehensive literature search was performed in Web of Science and PubMed databases. Opioid doses were converted to morphine equivalents for comparison. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled effect sizes. Eight studies (784 patients) were included for the primary 24-h outcome and seven studies (1164 patients) for the 48-h outcome. Meta-analysis showed significantly higher opioid requirements in smokers compared to nonsmokers at both 24 h (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.06, p < 0.00001) and 48 h postoperatively (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.48–0.74, p < 0.00001). On average, smokers required 33.7% more opioids than nonsmokers. Smokers also reported significantly higher pain scores 24 h after surgery (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26–0.92, p < 0.001). Despite low-quality evidence due to non-randomized study designs, this meta-analysis demonstrates that patients who smoke have significantly higher postoperative opioid requirements and pain scores than nonsmokers. These findings highlight the need to consider smoking status when developing postoperative pain management strategies. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this relationship and optimize pain control in smokers. This meta-analysis evaluates the effects of smoking on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. The primary aim of interest is whether smokers consume more opioids than nonsmokers within 24 and 48 h after surgery. Smokers require considerably larger doses of opioid analgesics (approximately 33.7% larger within the first 24 h) and continue to require greater amounts of pain relief up to 48 h after surgery. In addition, smokers experience greater pain 24 h after surgery. Various studies were included, and these studies contained a variety of different patient populations involved and different surgical procedures performed. Smokers require increased amounts of opioid analgesics and suffer from greater amounts of pain than nonsmokers. This fact will most likely show that smoking has an important part in the perception of pain and the responsiveness to medication given for pain control after surgery. These points support the idea that importance should be given to the smoking status of the patient and how pain relief in the postoperative management of pain control may be adjusted based on this. Providers will probably find it necessary to adjust their techniques of pain control in the smoking patients by altering medications or dosages to increase the efficacy of the medications used. Further study is indicated in order to more fully understand the effects of smoking on pain and the effects of opioids.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain and TherapySame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207