ArticleBMJ open2026
Analgesic efficacy of peri-operative methadone in orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOptimising post-operative pain management is crucial for recovery in orthopaedic surgery. Methadone has attracted interest due to its long half-life, METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will include randomised controlled trials evaluating intravenous peri-operative methadone vs placebo or standard analgesic regimens in orthopaedic surgery. Primary outcomes are post-operative rescue opioid consumption and pain intensity within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, mobility scores and the length of hospital stay. If available data permit, a methadone dose-response pattern may be investigated. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov without date restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. When appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis methods will be performed. Certainty of evidence will be assessed using Grading of recommendations assesment, development and Evaluation (GRADE). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study uses previously published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025616291.
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.