Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31255291›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2019

Influence of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on oncological outcomes: a narrative review.

T Wall, A Sherwin, D Ma, D J Buggy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 110 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
23.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 211 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Considerations for Care of the Cancer Patient.International anesthesiology clinics · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

T WallDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mater University Hospital, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; EU-COST Action 15204, Euro-Periscope, Avenue Louise 149, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: tom.p.wall@gmail.com.
A SherwinDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mater University Hospital, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; EU-COST Action 15204, Euro-Periscope, Avenue Louise 149, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
D MaEU-COST Action 15204, Euro-Periscope, Avenue Louise 149, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; Department of Anaesthesia, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, UK.
D J BuggyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mater University Hospital, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; EU-COST Action 15204, Euro-Periscope, Avenue Louise 149, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Mater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEImperial College London · GBUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgery is an important treatment modality for the majority of solid organ cancers. Unfortunately, cancer recurrence following surgery of curative intent is common, and typically results in refractory disease and patient death. Surgery and other perioperative interventions induce a biological state conducive to the survival and growth of residual cancer cells released from the primary tumour intraoperatively, which may influence the risk of a subsequent metastatic disease. Evidence is accumulating that anaesthetic and analgesic interventions could affect many of these pathophysiological processes, influencing risk of cancer recurrence in either a beneficial or detrimental way. Much of this evidence is from experimental in vitro and in vivo models, with clinical evidence largely limited to retrospective observational studies or post hoc analysis of RCTs originally designed to evaluate non-cancer outcomes. This narrative review summarises the current state of evidence regarding the potential effect of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on cancer biology and clinical outcomes. Proving a causal link will require data from prospective RCTs with oncological outcomes as primary endpoints, a number of which will report in the coming years. Until then, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular anaesthetic or analgesic technique for patients undergoing tumour resection surgery on the basis that it might alter the risk of recurrence or metastasis.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAnalgesiaAnesthesiaHumansNeoplasmsPerioperative Careanaesthesia, generalanaesthesia, inhalationalanaesthesia, intravenousanalgesiacancer, recurrenceinflammationopioidstress responsesurgery

Identifiers

PMID31255291
PMCPMC6676329
OpenAlexW2954607948

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.