Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41079738›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Comparison of oliceridine and sufentanil in patient - controlled intravenous analgesia for post - thoracoscopic nausea and vomiting: a prospective, double - blind, randomized controlled trial.

Yuxiang Meng, Sumin Yuan, Hengrui Zhang, Zijie Ling, Chenyang Shi, Yang Niu, Li Zhang, Zhibiao Xu, Yujun Liu, Kang Zhou and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
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

12 authors.

Yuxiang Meng *Department of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Sumin Yuan *Department of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Hengrui Zhang *Department of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Zijie LingDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Chenyang ShiDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Yang NiuDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Li ZhangDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Zhibiao XuDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Yujun LiuDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Kang ZhouDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Su LiuDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Linlin ZhaoDepartment of AnesCesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare oliceridine and sufentanil in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in thoracoscopic surgery patients. Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 130 patients at the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from December 2024 to February 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to oliceridine (Group O, n = 65) or sufentanil (Group S, n = 65) PCIA groups. General anesthesia combined with nerve block anesthesia was used intraoperatively, followed by PCIA post-surgery. The primary outcome was PONV incidence within 48 h. Secondary outcomes included nausea and vomiting scores, pain scores, rescue analgesia and antiemetic use, recovery indicators, and adverse reactions. Results: Baseline and intraoperative characteristics were similar between groups. The primary outcome (48-h PONV incidence) was significantly lower in Group O (32.3% [21/65]) than Group S (50.8% [33/65]; P = 0.033; OR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.23-0.94]), especially within 24 h postoperatively. Moderate-to-severe PONV was also less frequent in Group O (18.5% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.012; OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16-0.81]). Early postoperative pain scores were similar, but Group S had higher Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores after 12 h (P < 0.05), though the absolute differences were small (e.g., median resting VAS of 0 vs. 1 at 48 h). Rescue analgesic demand and PCIA use showed no significant difference. Group O had significantly higher Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores (median difference at 24 h: 5.0 [95% CI 1.2-8.8]; P < 0.05) and significantly lower Athens Insomnia Scale scores (median difference at 24 h: 1.0 [95% CI -2.3 to -0.5]; P < 0.05) compared to Group S. Adverse reaction rates, including dizziness, nightmares, hallucinations, respiratory depression, dry mouth, allergy, and bradycardia, were similar between groups. Conclusion: In high-PONV-risk thoracoscopic surgery, oliceridine-based PCIA significantly reduced PONV incidence compared to sufentanil (32.3% vs. 50.8%, P = 0.033), while also demonstrating superior recovery quality (QoR-15) and sleep outcomes (AIS). This establishes oliceridine as a procedure-specific analgesic option for enhancing recovery beyond conventional opioid-sparing effects.

Indexed as

analgesic efficacynausea and vomitingoliceridineopioidspostoperative pain managementthoracoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41079738
PMCPMC12511045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.