ReviewAnaesthesia reports
Intravenous methadone versus regional and neuraxial analgesic techniques in the peri-operative period: a scoping review.
Review in Anaesthesia reports. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a renewed interest in intravenous methadone as a long-acting peri-operative opioid. However, evidence comparing intravenous methadone with contemporary regional and neuraxial analgesic techniques remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence evaluating intravenous methadone against regional and neuraxial analgesic techniques in the peri-operative period. This review conformed to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Relevant articles were searched in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE and CENTRAL from January 2000 to May 2026. All studies were reviewed with no language restrictions. Four retrospective studies involving 1341 patients were included. Intravenous methadone was compared with intrathecal morphine, epidural analgesia and transversus abdominis plane blocks across cardiac, abdominal, thoracic, pancreatic and caesarean surgeries. Three studies reported higher postoperative pain scores among patients receiving intravenous methadone compared with neuraxial analgesia, although this did not translate to clinically significant differences in opioid consumption. Shorter vasopressor requirements and earlier mobilisation were reported in patients receiving intravenous methadone. Complications were inconsistently reported across studies. In conclusion, current evidence comparing intravenous methadone with regional and neuraxial analgesic techniques remains limited and highly heterogeneous. Although neuraxial techniques were associated with lower pain scores, this did not consistently translate into higher opioid consumption among patients receiving intravenous methadone. Prospective multicentre randomised controlled trials are required to better define the role of intravenous methadone within contemporary peri-operative analgesic pathways.
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.