Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660719›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2020

Intrathecal hydrophilic opioids for abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis, meta-regression, and trial sequential analysis.

Mark V Koning, Markus Klimek, Koen Rijs, Robert J Stolker, Michael A Heesen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05257941 (Randomized Prospective Study Comparison of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Intrathecal Opioid for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in an Enhanced Recovery Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.4field-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.

NCT05257941 phase1 / phase2terminatednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Prospective Study Comparison of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Intrathecal Opioid for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in an Enhanced Recovery Setting

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled116ConditionsSurgeryArmsIT Injection, ESP Block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark V KoningDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands. Electronic address: Markkoning66@hotmail.com.
Markus KlimekDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Koen RijsDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert J StolkerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael A HeesenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLKantonsspital Baden · CHRijnstate Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntrathecal hydrophilic opioids decrease systemic opioid consumption after abdominal surgery and potentially facilitate enhanced recovery. A meta-analysis is needed to quantify associated risks and benefits.

methodsA systematic search was performed to find RCTs investigating intrathecal hydrophilic opioids in abdominal surgery. Caesarean section and continuous regional or neuraxial techniques were excluded. Several subgroup analyses were prespecified. A conventional meta-analysis, meta-regression, trial sequential analysis, and provision of GRADE scores were planned.

resultsThe search yielded 40 trials consisting of 2500 patients. A difference was detected in 'i.v. morphine consumption' at Day 1 {mean difference [MD] -18.4 mg, (95% confidence interval [CI]: -22.3 to -14.4)} and Day 2 (MD -25.5 mg [95% CI: -30.2 to -20.8]), pain scores at Day 1 in rest (MD -0.9 [95% CI: -1.1 to -0.7]) and during movement (MD -1.2 [95% CI: -1.6 to -0.8]), length of stay (MD -0.2 days [95% CI: -0.4 to -0.1]) and pruritus (relative risk 4.3 [95% CI: 2.5-7.5]) but not in nausea or sedation. A difference was detected for respiratory depression (odds ratio 5.5 [95% CI: 2.1-14.2]) but not when two small outlying studies were excluded (odds ratio 1.4 [95% CI: 0.4-5.2]). The level of evidence was graded as high for morphine consumption, in part because the required information size was reached.

conclusionsThis study showed important opioid-sparing effects of intrathecal hydrophilic opioids. Our data suggest a dose-dependent relationship between the risk of respiratory depression and the dose of intrathecal opioids. Excluding two high-dose studies, intrathecal opioids have a comparable incidence of respiratory depression as the control group. CLINICAL

trial registrationPROSPERO-registry: CRD42018090682.

Indexed as

AbdomenAnalgesia, EpiduralAnalgesics, OpioidDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansPregnancyRespiratory InsufficiencyAnalgesics, Opioidanalgesicsenhanced recoveryintrathecallaparoscopylaparotomyopioidsspinal injections

Identifiers

PMID32660719
PMCPMC7497029
OpenAlexW3041741566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.