Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41655272›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2026

Early postoperative pain and opioid use after liver surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yatao Liu, Zhaohui Gao, Xiaodong Su, Chengying Ji, Qian Fu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Yatao LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operation, First Hospital of Lanzhou University, China.
Zhaohui GaoFirst School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-4406
Xiaodong SuFirst School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, China.
Chengying JiFirst School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3753-9785
Qian FuFirst School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundPostoperative pain following liver resection remains a clinical challenge, and the optimal analgesic strategy is still debated.ObjectiveTo determine whether a single intrathecal morphine injection provides superior analgesia and opioid-sparing effects compared with conventional systemic or regional techniques in adult patients undergoing liver surgery.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science citation index, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing intrathecal morphine with alternative analgesic regimens in liver resection. The primary outcome was pain intensity at rest 24 h after surgery (standardized mean difference). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity at 48 and 72 h and cumulative opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Random-effects meta-analyses and I² statistics were used to assess pooled effects and heterogeneity.ResultsEleven randomized controlled trials (n = 535) met the inclusion criteria. Intrathecal morphine reduced 24-h postoperative pain scores with a moderate effect (standardized mean difference = -0.64; 95% confidence interval: -0.84 to -0.44;

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidHepatectomyLiverMorphinePostoperative PainHumansInjections, SpinalPain ManagementPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidMorphineanalgesiaIntrathecal morphineliver surgerymeta-analysisopioid consumptionpostoperative painrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID41655272
PMCPMC12883716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.