SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Opioid Consumption, Pain and Complications Following Intraoperative Autonomic Nervous System-Based Nociception Monitoring.
Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Opioid Consumption, Pain and Complications Following Intraoperative Autonomic Nervous System-Based Nociception Monitoring.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutonomic nervous system-based nociception monitors have been proposed to optimise intraoperative opioid administration. While they reduce intraoperative opioid use, evidence on postoperative outcomes remains limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate their effects on postoperative pain, opioid consumption and complications.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Google Scholar, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing intraoperative nociception monitoring with standard care and reporting postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed per Cochrane guidance. Data were pooled with random-effects models (RevMan 5.4.1). Continuous outcomes were summarised as mean or standardised mean differences (95% CI) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (95% CI).
resultsThirty-eight RCTs comprising 3243 patients were included. Post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) opioid consumption was lower in monitor-guided groups (mean difference -0.6 mg, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19). Likewise, 24-h morphine consumption decreased (mean difference -2.56 mg, 95% CI -4.01 to -1.11); however, these reductions did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. PACU and 24-h pain scores, as well as the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, respiratory events, urinary retention, delirium and chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionsIntraoperative nociception monitors modestly reduce early postoperative opioid requirements, but without clinically meaningful benefit. No improvements were observed in postoperative pain or complications. These findings suggest that, despite their impact on intraoperative opioid titration, nociception monitors do not improve patient-centered postoperative outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that intraoperative autonomic nervous system-based nociception monitors significantly reduce postoperative opioid consumption at PACU discharge and 24 hours, but the effect size does not reach the minimal clinically important difference. Pain scores and postoperative complications are not significantly impacted. These findings suggest that, while nociception monitors influence intraoperative opioid titration, their clinical benefit on postoperative outcomes remains limited.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42023490440; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023490440.
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.