Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39477266›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Assessing the relative efficacy of components of opioid-free anaesthesia in adult surgical patients: protocol for a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Amparo Belltall, Guido Mazzinari, Aisling Ní Eochagáin, Tom Wall, Ary Serpa Neto, Oscar Diaz-Cambronero, Daniel Sessler, Donal J Buggy, Juan Cata, Markus W Hollmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Amparo BelltallPerioperative Medicine Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Guido MazzinariPerioperative Medicine Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain gmazzinari@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7377-331X
Aisling Ní EochagáinDepartment of Anaesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Mater University Hospital, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
Tom WallDepartment of Anaesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Mater University Hospital, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
Ary Serpa NetoMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Oscar Diaz-CambroneroPerioperative Medicine Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3170-7709
Daniel SesslerCenter for Outcomes Research and Department of Anesthesiology, UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9932-3077
Donal J BuggyEuro-Periscope: The Onco-Anaesthesiology Research Group (RG), European Society of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care (ESA-IC), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3922-4397
Juan CataAnesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3156-1682
Markus W HollmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC - Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe rise of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) aims to reduce postoperative pain while reducing opioid-related side effects during surgery. However, the various adjuvant agents used in OFA complicate the evaluation of their effectiveness and risks. Recent reviews question the clinical benefits of OFA, highlighting the need for thorough evaluation. This protocol describes a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of OFA with opioid-based anaesthesia and will identify key components for optimal postoperative outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic search of literature published in English without time restriction in Embase, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL, along with Google Scholar for grey literature. The final search will be performed on 1 October 2024. We will include randomised controlled trials with adult patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia, excluding preclinical, observational, regional anaesthesia-only and prolonged anaesthesia outside the operating room studies. The primary outcome is postsurgical pain scores, with secondary outcomes including quality of recovery, opioid consumption, adverse effects and long-term events. We will assess bias using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and conduct Bayesian network meta-analyses for pooled estimates. We will report effect estimates as ORs and standardised mean differences with 95% credible intervals and assess certainty using GRADE methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international anaesthesia and pain management conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024505853.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaPostoperative PainAdultAnalgesics, OpioidHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidAdult AnaesthesiaPain ManagementStatistics and Research MethodsSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID39477266
PMCPMC11529738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.