ArticleCureus2026
Defining, Evaluating, and Managing Postoperative Respiratory Depression: An e-Delphi Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative respiratory depression (PORD) is a common but underreported postoperative pulmonary complication with potentially serious short- and long-term consequences. Despite its prevalence, no universally accepted expert definition exists, making identification, diagnosis, and epidemiologic study challenging.
methodsAn e‑Delphi study was conducted with a multidisciplinary panel of 10 board‑certified physicians in anesthesiology, surgery, pulmonology, emergency medicine, and critical care. Over four rounds, panelists anonymously rated 20 literature‑derived statements on PORD definition, diagnosis, risk factors, monitoring, prevention, and management using a 1-10 Likert scale. A consensus threshold of ≥70% agreement was applied. Panelists could suggest revisions, and statements were ranked by relative importance.
resultsNineteen of 20 statements (95%) achieved consensus; 15 reached consensus within two rounds, and four additional statements reached consensus by round four. The most important statement defined PORD as a clinically significant reduction in neural drive to breathe, indicated by respiratory rate <10 breaths/min, SpO₂ <90%, or PaCO₂ >50-55 mmHg within 48 h post-surgery, with early cases often linked to anesthesia. Key consensus areas included risk factors (advanced age, obesity, pre-existing respiratory disease, certain anesthetic agents), diagnosis via continuous pulse oximetry and capnography, and the need for a reversal agent that does not compromise analgesia. A statement on low-dose naloxone infusion did not achieve consensus.
conclusionsThis study establishes expert consensus with a consensus threshold of ≥70% agreement on a clinically applicable definition of PORD, its risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management principles. The findings provide a framework for standardizing research, guiding perioperative monitoring, and informing preventive strategies, while highlighting the urgent need for targeted reversal agents.
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.