ArticleJournal of pain research2026
The Effect of Oliceridine Versus Sufentanil on the Quality of Postoperative Recovery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Oliceridine versus Sufentanil on the Quality of Postoperative Recovery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy [Letter].Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- The Effect of Oliceridine versus Sufentanil on the Quality of Postoperative Recovery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy [Response to Letter].Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Oliceridine versus Sufentanil for Postoperative Intravenous Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery in the AICU: A Double-Blind Non-Inferiority Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of oliceridine and sufentanil on the quality of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods: This study is of single-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group controlled, non-inferior design. Ninety-two patients scheduled for LC under general anesthesia were equally and randomly assigned to two groups: Group S (sufentanil) and Group O (oliceridine). During anesthesia induction, Group S received intravenous sufentanil at a dose of 0.20 μg/kg, while Group O received oliceridine at a dose of 0.04 mg/kg. Five minutes prior to incision, an additional dose of sufentanil (15 μg) was administered to Group S, and oliceridine (3 mg) to Group O. At the conclusion of the procedure, all patients received rectus sheath infiltration with 0.3% ropivacaine at the three trocar insertion sites. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score at 12 and 24 hours postoperatively. The secondary outcome measures included mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) at different perioperative time points, static visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores within 12 hours postoperatively, and adverse reactions within 24 hours postoperatively. Results: Compared with the sufentanil group, the oliceridine group had significantly higher QoR-15 scores at 12 h and 24 h postoperatively (P<0.001), and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting assessed based on QoR-15 scale at 24 h postoperatively (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the group-time interaction of MAP and HR between the two groups at each intraoperative time-point (P>0.05), nor was there a statistically significant difference in the static VAS pain scores within 12 h postoperatively (P>0.05). Conclusion: In the perioperative pain management of LC, oliceridine can significantly improve the early quality of postoperative recovery, effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and is non-inferior to sufentanil in terms of hemodynamic stability.
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.