Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31153631›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2019

Perioperative Pain and Addiction Interdisciplinary Network (PAIN) clinical practice advisory for perioperative management of buprenorphine: results of a modified Delphi process.

Akash Goel, Saam Azargive, Joel S Weissman, Harsha Shanthanna, John G Hanlon, Bana Samman, Mary Dominicis, Karim S Ladha, Wiplove Lamba, Scott Duggan and 15 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.8field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Narrative review: Managing buprenorphine and opioid use disorder in the perioperative setting.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

25 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Akash GoelDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada; T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, USA.
Saam AzargiveDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Anaesthesia, Queen's University School of Medicine, Canada.
Joel S WeissmanT.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, USA; Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Institute, USA.
Harsha ShanthannaDepartment of Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Canada.
John G HanlonDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Bana SammanDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Mary DominicisDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Karim S LadhaDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Wiplove LambaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Canada.
Scott DugganDepartment of Anaesthesia, Queen's University School of Medicine, Canada.
Tania Di RennaDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Philip PengDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Clinton WongDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of British Columbia, Canada.
Avinash SinhaDepartment of Anaesthesia, McGill University, Canada.
Naveen EipeDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Ottawa, Canada.
David MartellDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Canada.
Howard IntraterDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Manitoba, Canada.
Peter MacDougallDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Kwesi KwofieDepartment of Anaesthesia, Dalhousie University, Canada.
Mireille St-JeanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Saifee RashiqDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Alberta, Canada.
Kari Van CampPain Research Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada.
David FlamerDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada.
Michael Satok-WolmanPain Research Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada.
Hance ClarkeDepartment of Anaesthesia, University of Toronto, Canada; Pain Research Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: hance.clarke@uhn.ca.
University of Toronto · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CADalhousie University · CAQueen's University · CABrigham and Women's Hospital · USMcGill University · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphi-based survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from long-term high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniquePractice Guidelines as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineChronic PainHumansOpioid-Related DisordersPain ManagementPerioperative CareAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphinebuprenorphinechronic painguidelinesopioidsopioid use disorderperioperative

Identifiers

PMID31153631
PMCPMC6676043
OpenAlexW2947584742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.