Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40181183›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2025

Tolerability of different doses of oliceridine versus traditional opioids in acute pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yulin Liu, Ying Zhu, Hong Fu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. ECDrug design, development and therapy · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Novel Ligands for the Orphan Receptor GPR151 Modulate Morphine Action.Genes to cells : devoted to molecular & cellular mechanisms · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

3 authors.

Yulin LiuChongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, No. 1, Jiankang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Ying ZhuChongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, No. 1, Jiankang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Hong FuChongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, No. 1, Jiankang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400030, China. fuhong1974@cqu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine.

Indexed as

Acute PainAnalgesics, OpioidPain ManagementSpiro CompoundsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMorphineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicThiophenes((3-methoxythiophen-2-yl)methyl)((2-(9-(pyridin-2-yl)-6-oxaspiro(4.5)decan-9-yl)ethyl))amineAnalgesics, OpioidMorphineSpiro CompoundsThiophenesAcute painMeta-analysisOliceridineSafetyTolerability

Identifiers

PMID40181183
PMCPMC11968941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.