ArticlePloS one2026
Autonomic nervous system modulation by G protein-biased mu-opioid receptor agonists: A translational scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundG protein-biased mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists such as oliceridine and tegileridine were developed to reduce opioid-related side effects while keeping analgesic efficacy. The US FDA approved oliceridine in 2020 and China NMPA approved tegileridine in January 2024. Clinical development mainly focused on respiratory depression and gastrointestinal problems, but little attention has been paid to the autonomic nervous system (ANS) effects of these drugs. Traditional opioids change heart rate variability (HRV) and sympathovagal balance mainly through central mechanisms. It is not clear whether biased agonists show different autonomic profiles compared with traditional opioids. There is an ongoing scientific debate about whether the benefits of these drugs come from true signaling bias or from low intrinsic efficacy.
methodsWe will conduct a scoping review following JBI methodology and report according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from database start to March 2026. FDA and NMPA regulatory documents will also be searched. Two reviewers will screen studies and extract data independently. We will include in vitro cellular assays, in vivo animal experiments, and clinical studies examining oliceridine, tegileridine or other biased MOR agonists that report cardiovascular or autonomic outcomes. Results will be organized in an Evidence Matrix by drug, evidence level and measurement timepoint. Animal studies will be stratified by anesthetic state (conscious versus anesthetized). DISCUSSION: We will map the evidence against three mechanistic paradigms: that biased agonism preserves autonomic homeostasis; that observed benefits come from partial agonism rather than signaling bias; or that no meaningful autonomic differences exist between biased and traditional agonists. This review will map evidence gaps and inform future clinical trial design with autonomic endpoints. We note that tegileridine has much less published data than oliceridine, and this gap analysis will help set research priorities. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) [https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N2XZC].
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.