Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30721376›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2019

Meta-analysis of the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery.

C Cooke, E D Kennedy, I Foo, S Nimmo, D Speake, H M Paterson, N T Ventham

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C CookeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-3353
E D KennedyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
I FooDepartment of Anaesthesia, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
S NimmoDepartment of Anaesthesia, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
D SpeakeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
H M PatersonDepartment of Colorectal surgery, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh Academic Coloproctology, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. hugh.paterson@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4698-0131
N T VenthamDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-2812
Western General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReturn of normal gastrointestinal (GI) function is a critical determinant of recovery after colorectal surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine benefits return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal resection.

methodsA comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.org was performed on 1st July 2018. A manual search of reference lists was also performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intravenous (IV) lidocaine administered perioperatively compared to placebo (0.9% saline infusion) as part of a multimodal perioperative analgesic regimen, human adults (> 16 years), and open or laparoscopic colorectal resectional surgery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: non-colorectal surgery, non-placebo comparator, children, non-general anaesthetic, and pharmacokinetic studies. The primary endpoint was time to first bowel movement. Secondary endpoints were time to first passage of flatus, time to toleration of diet, nausea and vomiting, ileus, pain scores, opioid analgesia consumption, and length of stay.

resultsOne hundred and ninety one studies were screened, with 9 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (405 patients, four laparoscopic and five open surgery studies). IV lidocaine reduced time to first bowel movement compared to placebo [seven studies, 325 patients, mean weighted difference - 9.54 h, 95% CI 18.72-0.36, p = 0.04]. Ileus, pain scores, and length of stay were reduced with IV lidocaine compared with placebo.

conclusionsPerioperative IV lidocaine may improve recovery of gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery. Large-scale effectiveness studies to measure effect size and evaluate optimum dose/duration are warranted.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdolescentAdultAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalColonic DiseasesColonoscopyDefecationFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLidocaineMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PainPostoperative PeriodAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineColorectal surgeryIleusIntravenous lidocaineLaparoscopic

Identifiers

PMID30721376
PMCPMC6394718
OpenAlexW2913772489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.