ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2019
Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen in Ambulatory Surgical Center Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Managing Postembolization Syndrome-Related Pain after Uterine Fibroid Embolization.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2021Review
- Perioperative Pain Management and Opioid Stewardship: A Practical Guide.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThe primary aim was to compare postoperative pain scores in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and receiving intravenous (IV) or oral (PO) acetaminophen (APAP) as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen to examine whether PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP.
designRetrospective analysis.
settingAmbulatory surgical center (ASC) in an academic setting. PATIENTS: 579 patients (18-70 years old), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III, undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
interventionsPatients received 1,000 mg IV APAP intraoperatively (n = 319) or 1,000 mg PO APAP preoperatively (n = 260). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the median difference in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) end-pain scores between the groups. Median pain scores were also compared on PACU admission, and at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. Additional measures include PACU rescue-analgesia consumption, time to first PACU rescue analgesia, intraoperative use of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, PACU length of stay, and PACU rescue nausea and vomiting therapy. MAIN
resultsIn both groups, the PACU median end-pain score was 2. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for difference in median pain scores between groups was [0, 0]; the CI upper limit was below the non-inferior margin of 1 pain-score point, indicating PO APAP's non-inferiority to IV APAP. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentages of patients receiving PACU hydromorphone equivalents between the IV and PO groups (75% vs. 77%,
conclusionSingle-dose PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP for postoperative analgesia in ASC laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. The value of single-dose IV APAP in this population should be further explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31160871PMC6534170W2989572109What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.