ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Dinalbuphine Sebacate, Patient-Controlled Analgesia, and Conventional Analgesia After Laparotomy for Gynecologic Cancers: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. 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.
- Effect of Dinalbuphine sebacate on postoperative multimodal analgesic strategy in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Novel Opioids in the Setting of Acute Postoperative Pain: A Narrative Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Multimodal Analgesia with Extended-Release Dinalbuphine Sebacate for Perioperative Pain Management in Upper Extremity Trauma Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Pain and therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the effects of dinalbuphine sebacate (DNS), fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and conventional analgesia (CA) for pain management after laparotomy for gynecologic cancers.
methodsA total of 137 eligible patients who underwent laparotomy through a midline incision wound for gynecologic cancer between July 2019 and June 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into three groups as follows: the intramuscular DNS, intravenous PCA, and CA groups. Postoperative pain (POP) intensity as measured with a numerical rating scale (NRS), total consumption of analgesics, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between the three groups.
resultsThe DNS group showed significant reduction in NRS pain intensity than the PCA and CA groups on day 1 (4.8 vs 6.2, p < 0.01 and 6.2, p < 0.05, respectively), day 2 (3.0 vs 4.7, p < 0.01 and 4.8, p < 0.001, respectively), day 3 (2.0 vs 3.9, p < 0.001 and 3.5, p < 0.001, respectively), day 4 (1.1 vs 3.1, p < 0.001 and 2.9, p < 0.001, respectively), and day 5 (0.7 vs 2.3, p < 0.001 and 2.4, p < 0.001, respectively). The total consumption of morphine equivalents per day was similar between the DNS and PCA groups (142.8 ± 7.3 mg vs 137.7 ± 70.0 mg, p = 0.8032) and lowest in the CA group (11.7 ± 30.7 mg, p < 0.0001). The overall safety profile was comparable between the DNS, PCA, and CA groups. The patients in the DNS group complained less of dizziness postoperatively than those in the PCA group (27% vs 47%) and had less nausea than those in the CA group (13% vs 33%).
conclusionA single DNS injection was more effective for relieving POP than PCA and CA in the patients who had a longitudinal incision for gynecologic cancer surgery. DNS was well tolerated and had less adverse effects than PCA and CA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.