SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of intravenous methadone for pain management in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objectives: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of intraoperative intravenous methadone compared with conventional opioid-based analgesic regimens in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, using data derived from randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies. Methods: A comprehensive retrieval of scholarly literature was implemented in Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until November 28, 2025. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies comparing intraoperative methadone with other opioid analgesics for pain management in patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Quality of included studies was independently evaluated by two reviewers, with randomized controlled trials assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 2.0) and cohort studies appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included postoperative 24-h opioid consumption, time to first rescue morphine administration, time to extubation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and reported adverse outcomes, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, and postoperative reintubation. Results: Eight studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies, involving 10,203 patients were included. Compared with conventional opioid analgesics, intraoperative methadone was associated with lower postoperative 24-h pain intensity (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI - 0.71 to -0.17; Conclusion: In adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, intraoperative intravenous methadone may be associated with lower pain intensity and reduced opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery. However, substantial heterogeneity, inconsistent findings between randomized and retrospective studies, and incomplete reporting of key safety outcomes limit the certainty of the evidence. These findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further adequately powered randomized trials with standardized analgesic protocols and safety monitoring are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251237093, identifier (CRD420251237093).
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.