SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of oliceridine versus sufentanil in perioperative anesthesia and analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 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
backgroundPerioperative pain management is a significant challenge when using conventional µ opioid agonists, which often require careful balancing of efficacy and safety. Oliceridine, a G-protein-biased µ-opioid receptor agonist, may provide comparable analgesia while offering a potentially improved safety profile.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative oliceridine and sufentanil in adult patients were systematically identified from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 21, 2026. Primary outcomes included respiratory depression, hypotension, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Secondary outcomes comprised Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores at 24 h, recovery time, extubation time, rescue analgesic requirements, 48-hour pain scores at rest, dizziness, bradycardia, and hospital length of stay. Random-effects models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluated the robustness of the evidence.
resultsSeven RCTs (n = 1,327 patients; 1,242 in quantitative synthesis) showed that oliceridine reduced respiratory depression (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.76; I² = 0%) and PONV (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.36-0.65; I² = 0%), with TSA supporting conclusive evidence. Hypotension showed no difference between groups (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.53-1.30; I² = 0%). Oliceridine significantly improved 24-hour QoR-15 scores (MD = 6.27, 95% CI: 4.33-8.20). Other secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant differences.
conclusionsThese preliminary findings indicate that oliceridine reduces the risks of respiratory depression and PONV compared with sufentanil, while analgesic efficacy and hemodynamic stability were comparable in Chinese adults. Larger, multicenter trials in diverse populations and surgical contexts are required to confirm these findings and address existing gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42557460What 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.