Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025
Patient preferences for analgesia in lung surgery: an observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 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.
- The future of lung cancer surgery lies between innovations: synergy across the perioperative ERATS pathway.Frontiers in oncology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal analgesia following thoracoscopic lung surgery is crucial for patient comfort and effective recovery. Despite the lack of high quality evidence in guidelines, experts favour locoregional analgesic techniques above thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), without considering patient preferences. This study investigates patient choices to aid in shared-decision making and incorporation in guidelines.
methodsThrough adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) concerning attributes (characteristics) related to analgesic techniques and treatment trade-off methods (TTM) comparing scenarios with locoregional analgesia against TEA, 200 patients planned for thoracoscopic lung resection in five Dutch hospitals received online questionnaires. In the TTM, patients were repeatedly asked to choose between two scenarios: one describing thoracic epidural analgesia with fixed low levels of pain and the other representing locoregional analgesia with varying pain levels, to assess trade-off thresholds. For the ACA, Relative Importance (RI) of the characteristics was calculated with 95%-confidence intervals (CI).
resultsResponse rates of ACA and TTM questionnaires were 72% (144/200) and 71% (141/200) respectively. The most important characteristics were state of consciousness (‘awake or under general anaesthesia’) while receiving the analgesic technique (RI 20.45; 95%-CI 19.12–21.75) and mobilisation (RI 19.42; 95%-CI 18.45–20.38). In the TTM, 10 patients (7.1%) consistently chose the TEA scenario, irrespective of the benefits of locoregional analgesia. In contrast, 131 patients (92.9%) preferred experiencing more moments of pain as trade-off for the potential advantages associated with locoregional analgesia.
conclusionRegarding analgesia following thoracoscopic lung surgery, patients considered the state of consciousness while receiving the analgesic technique (awake or under general anaesthesia) and postoperative mobility as the most important characteristics. Over 92% of patients are willing to accept more moments of pain as trade-off for the potential benefits of locoregional analgesia. These findings are aligned with current guideline recommendations and support the inclusion of patient preferences in shared decision-making.
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.