-
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2022Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains uncertain. We aimed to estimate the extent to which opioid prescribing after discharge affects self-reported pain intensity and adverse events in comparison with an opioid-free analgesic regimen.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, Biosis, and CINAHL from Jan 1, 1990, until July 8, 2021. We included multidose randomised controlled trials comparing opioid versus opioid-free analgesia in patients aged 15 years or older, discharged after undergoing a surgical procedure according to the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity definition (minor, moderate, major, and major complex). We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials) in duplicate. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported pain intensity on day 1 after discharge (standardised to 0-10 cm visual analogue scale) and vomiting up to 30 days. Pain intensity at further timepoints, pain interference, other adverse events, risk of dissatisfaction, and health-care reutilisation were also assessed. We did random-effects meta-analyses and appraised evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations scoring system. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42020153050).
FINDINGS
47 trials (n=6607 patients) were included. 30 (64%) trials involved elective minor procedures (63% dental procedures) and 17 (36%) trials involved procedures of moderate extent (47% orthopaedic and 29% general surgery procedures). Compared with opioid-free analgesia, opioid prescribing did not reduce pain on the first day after discharge (weighted mean difference 0·01cm, 95% CI -0·26 to 0·27; moderate certainty) or at other postoperative timepoints (moderate-to-very-low certainty). Opioid prescribing was associated with increased risk of vomiting (relative risk 4·50, 95% CI 1·93 to 10·51; high certainty) and other adverse events, including nausea, constipation, dizziness, and drowsiness (high-to-moderate certainty). Opioids did not affect other outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
Findings from this meta-analysis support that opioid prescribing at surgical discharge does not reduce pain intensity but does increase adverse events. Evidence relied on trials focused on elective surgeries of minor and moderate extent, suggesting that clinicians can consider prescribing opioid-free analgesia in these surgical settings. Data were largely derived from low-quality trials, and none involved patients having major or major-complex procedures. Given these limitations, there is a great need to advance the quality and scope of research in this field.
FUNDING
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Patient Discharge; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting; Pain, Postoperative; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 35717988
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00582-7 -
Anaesthesia May 2021Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding...
Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother-child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50-100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre-operatively; paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single-injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel-Cohen incision; non-closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cesarean Section; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Injections, Spinal; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33370462
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15339 -
The International Journal of... Apr 2021Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.
OBJECTIVE
We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.
METHODS
Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.
RESULTS
Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).
CONCLUSION
All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.
Topics: Brain Diseases; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mental Disorders; Pain; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 32710772
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa051 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Quality of Life; Cryotherapy; Knee Joint; Pain
PubMed: 37706609
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007911.pub3 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most...
Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.
PubMed: 34977084
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.782151 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2022Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Critical Illness; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35648198
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06712-2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Dec 2022Nonopioid analgesics are commonly used to augment or replace opioids in the perioperative setting. Perianesthesia nurses must consider timing and appropriateness when... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Nonopioid analgesics are commonly used to augment or replace opioids in the perioperative setting. Perianesthesia nurses must consider timing and appropriateness when administering these medications to patients in the preoperative area or the postanesthesia care unit, particularly when other medications with sedative effects are being given. Gabapentin, originally proposed as an anticonvulsant medication, promotes analgesia and reduces risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting. This review examines the effect of gabapentin on postoperative pain.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHODS
CINAHL, PubMed, and Cochrane Review databases were searched to find a total of 93 sources that examined gabapentin and postoperative pain. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were reviewed. Postoperative pain within the 24 hours of surgery was measured as the primary outcome using the visual analog scale in all sources FINDINGS: Three of the four reviewed RCTs determined gabapentin was both statistically and clinically significant in reducing postoperative pain, and all four sources showed a reduction in opioid consumption during the immediate postoperative period, which promoted patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Further study of gabapentin and postoperative pain is needed employing rigorous and robust methodology and diversity of the sample selections.
Topics: Humans; Gabapentin; Analgesics, Opioid; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia
PubMed: 36100525
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2022.04.008 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36-44%, < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction ( < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia ( < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA ( = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.
PubMed: 37176605
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093164 -
Journal of Opioid Management 2022To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables.
DESIGN
Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioids in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
SETTING
A systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified relevant RCTs from start of recording to 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs comparing opioids via intravenous PCA in acute pain, with comparable resulting pain scores and identical treatment with coanalgesics at study level. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with six items.
RESULTS
52 RCTs were identified with data for 16 opioids. Primary endpoint was the inverted ratio of means of the total consumption administered via PCA, which resembles the analgesic potency. The calculated analgesic potencies were sufentanil 423 [95 percent CI 334.99; 532.96], fentanyl 58 [48.22; 68.60], buprenorphine 37 [26.66; 50.81], remifentanil 13 [9.37; 19.13], alfentanil 7 [4.02; 11.01], hydromorphone 6 [4.96; 8.43], oxymorphone 6 [4.46; 8.84], butorphanol 4.5 [3.05; 6.73], diamorphine 2.2 [1.16; 4.10], morphine 1, oxycodone 0.9 [0.65; 1.34], piritramide 0.9 [0.55; 1.56], nalbuphine 0.7 [0.54; 0.95], pethidine 0.12 [0.10; 0.15], meptazinol 0.08 [0.03; 0.20], and tramadol 0.08 [0.07; 0.10].
CONCLUSIONS
The results in part contradict the values from the literature, which have been criticized for their imprecision. From clinical experience however, our findings seem very plausible. Short-acting opioids are less potent compared to longer acting drugs, eg, morphine, probably due to shorter intervals for -readministration.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Tramadol; Morphine
PubMed: 36523208
DOI: 10.5055/jom.2022.0751