ReviewJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Efficacy and safety of sublingual buprenorphine in managing acute postoperative pain - A systematic review.
Review in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Sublingual (SL) buprenorphine has been used as a modality of managing acute postoperative pain in many studies. This systematic review aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of SL buprenorphine as an analgesic for various surgeries. After registering the protocol with PROSPERO, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases with relevant keywords. The primary outcomes were 24-hour pain scores, and the secondary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation scores, pruritus, rescue analgesia, and urinary retention. The risk of bias scale was used to identify the quality of evidence. From the 103 articles identified, four randomized-controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. The overall risk of bias was low. Most of the studies showed that the use of SL buprenorphine led to either better or comparable pain scores when compared to a control group with lesser or tolerable adverse events. There was a lot of heterogeneity across the studies in this systematic review in terms of the type of surgery performed, the comparison groups, doses of buprenorphine, and the outcomes that were assessed. Therefore, a quantitative meta-analysis was not performed. The results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Adequately powered studies with robust methodology should investigate the safety and efficacy of SL buprenorphine when used for postoperative analgesia.
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.