ArticleThe Korean journal of pain2025
Pain assessment using the Analgesia Nociception Index in patients undergoing sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The Korean journal of pain, 2025. 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.
- Electroencephalography research in neuropathic pain (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the utility of the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) in detecting intraoperative and procedural pain in sedated patients. Methods: A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of ANI, assessed by pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Secondary outcomes were the correlation between ANI and pain assessment scales, the effect of norepinephrine (NE) on ANI, and differences in opioid consumption between the ANI-guided and control groups. Results: Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, with ten studies incorporated into the meta-analysis. ANI demonstrated moderate sensitivity (0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.683-0.803) and specificity (0.776, 95% CI = 0.741-0.808) for detecting intraoperative and procedural pain, with a pooled DOR of 10.491. ANI was lower in the pain state than that in the no-pain state (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.140, 95% CI = -1.239 to -1.041, I Conclusions: ANI effectively differentiated between the pain and non-pain states in sedated patients with moderate diagnostic accuracy and helped reduce opioid consumption. However, the high heterogeneity suggests the need for cautious interpretation.
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.