Trial reportBMJ open2025
Intravenous lidocaine for gut function recovery in colonic surgery: a health economic evaluation of the ALLEGRO randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using intravenous lidocaine (bolus given at induction of anaesthesia, followed by infusion for 6-12 hours) during colorectal surgery to improve the return of gastrointestinal function.
designWithin-trial planned analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach.
setting27 hospitals from across the UK.
participants557 patients aged 25-91 having minimally invasive elective colorectal resection.
interventionA 1:1 randomisation between intravenous lidocaine and placebo, minimised for age (<50 years, 50-74 years, ≥75 years), gender, and trial centre. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean differences between trial arms in 30-day and 90-day quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 30-day total National Health Service costs, as well as the 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
resultsCompliance and data quality were high. Intravenous lidocaine is associated with differences of £38 (95% CI: -£463, £589) in total 30-day costs, -0.0005 (95% CI: -0.0027, 0.0015) in 30-day QALYs and -0.0008 (95% CI: -0.0066, 0.0048) in 90-day QALYs. No large, statistically significant or meaningful differences in primary or secondary outcome measures between trial arms were detected, other than for the intervention costs.
conclusionIntravenous lidocaine is not found to impact costs or health outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In the absence of a clinical effect, disinvestment from perioperative lidocaine could save costs associated with infusion monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 52352431.
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.