SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2023
Analgesic potential of transdermal nicotine patch in surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of perioperative transdermal nicotine patch on postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Ecological momentary assessment of cigarette smoking behavior and pain intensity among individuals with chronic back pain who smoke.The journal of pain · 2025Article
- The Anti-Nociceptive Effects of Nicotine in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed (1) to systematically review the efficacy of transdermal nicotine patches (NP) for postoperative analgesia, (2) to establish the current quality of evidence and assist clinical decision-making on the subject, and (3) to identify methodological limitations and the need for more well-designed studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched six electronic databases, protocol records, and other sources without date or language restriction until March 2022. To develop the search strategy, we formulated a clinical question by using the PICOD method. Eligibility criteria included randomised placebo-controlled trials on the analgesic potential of NP for surgical procedures. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 statement, and we registered the protocol in PROSPERO (#CRD42020205956).
resultsWe included 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials (535 patients). The NP administered before induction of anaesthesia and at beginning of surgery reduced the pain immediately after surgery (-0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.73 to -0.02), and 6 h (-0.34; 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.01), 12 h (-0.43; 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.15) and 24 h (-0.35; 95%CI: -0.59 to -0.10) after surgery, compared with the placebo patch (PP) group. Sensitivity testing suggests that opioid use could underestimate NP analgesia. Late demand for the first analgesic and consumption of rescue analgesics tended to be lower in the NP group.
conclusionsThe current findings suggest, with low certainty of evidence, the analgesic potential of NP for surgical procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Perioperative use of NP significantly improved postoperative pain, even when opioids were administered or prescribed. Nevertheless, the clinical relevance should be interpreted with caution, owing to the effect sizes of the summary measures and methodological issues. The analgesic potential of NP as an adjuvant therapy to regulate pain and acute inflammation may offer certain clinical advantages, thus warranting further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36947193What 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.