Trial reportFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Analgesic effect of methadone constant rate infusion is not superior to fentanyl constant rate infusion in dogs after spinal surgery: a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of methadone and fentanyl infusions at a 50:1 dose rate in dogs after spinal surgery. Methods: In a prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial, 42 dogs with intervertebral disk disease were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, 18, 24, 42, 48, 66, 72, 90, and 96 h after extubation. Based on the treatment groups, the dogs received a presurgical bolus of 0.25 mg/kg methadone or 5 μg/kg fentanyl, followed by an intraoperative and postoperative opioid infusion. In the methadone (M) treatment group, the dogs received 0.2 mg/kg/h methadone, which was reduced stepwise to 0.05 mg/kg/h. In the fentanyl (F) treatment group, the initial dose of 5 μg/kg/h was reduced stepwise to 1 μg/kg/h. Assessments at each time point included a simple sedation score, vital parameters, pain scoring using the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF), and sensory testing with von Frey filaments. Multiple Mann-Whitney tests were used for the analysis of CMPS-SF scores and sedation scores. Vital parameters, between and within the groups, were analyzed using mixed-effects analysis and Dunnett's multiple comparison test. The need for rescue analgesia was assessed via survival analysis. The level of significance was set to α = 5%. Results: In the postoperative period, six dogs in group M and four dogs in group F required rescue analgesia. CMPS-SF scores were not different between the groups M and F and did not change significantly over time within the treatment groups. Tactile sensory thresholds were not different between the groups M and F. Clinical significance: Under the dosing regimens investigated, methadone did not provide superior postoperative analgesia compared to fentanyl. From a clinical perspective, both drugs provided effective postoperative analgesia in this heterogeneous cohort of dogs following spinal surgery.
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.