ReviewBMC anesthesiology2023
Opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain: an overview of systematic reviews related to two consensus statements relevant at patient, prescriber, system and public health levels.
Review in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative Ketorolac and Hematoma Following Breast Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Painkiller administration after endoscopic submucosal dissection surgery: a retrospective real-world study.Annals of medicine · 2025Observational
- Expectations about pain management after discharge from total hip and knee replacement surgery: a qualitative study with patients and prescribers.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain are needed to optimise postoperative pain control and function whilst minimising opioid-related harm.
objectivesThis overview of systematic reviews aims to summarise and critically assess the quality of systematic reviews related to the 20 recommendations from two previously published consensus guideline papers (ten relevant at patient and prescriber levels and ten at a system / Public Health level). It also aims to identify gaps in research that require further efforts to fill these in order to augment the evidence behind creating national guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain.
methodsA systematic database search using PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane was conducted in November 2022. Furthermore, reference lists were reviewed. All identified systematic reviews were assessed for eligibility. Data from each study was extracted using a pre-standardised data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Descriptive synthesis of the results was performed.
resultsA total of 12 papers were eligible for analysis. Only eight out of the total 20 prioritised recommendations had systematic reviews that provided evidence related to them. These systematic reviews were most commonly of critically low quality.
conclusionThe consensus papers provide guidance and recommendations based on the consensus of expert opinion that is based on the best available evidence. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting many of these consensus statements. Efforts to further analyse interventions that aim to reduce the rates of opioid prescribing and their adverse effects should therefore continue.
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.