Opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain: an overview of systematic reviews related to two consensus statements relevant at patient, prescriber, system and public health levels
-
Published:2023-08-30
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1471-2253
-
Container-title:BMC Anesthesiology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Anesthesiol
Author:
McCorquodale C. L.,Greening R.,Tulloch R.,Forget P.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
National guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain are needed to optimise postoperative pain control and function whilst minimising opioid-related harm.
Objectives
This overview of systematic reviews aims to summarise and critically assess the quality of systematic reviews related to the 20 recommendations from two previously published consensus guideline papers (ten relevant at patient and prescriber levels and ten at a system / Public Health level). It also aims to identify gaps in research that require further efforts to fill these in order to augment the evidence behind creating national guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain.
Methods
A systematic database search using PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane was conducted in November 2022. Furthermore, reference lists were reviewed. All identified systematic reviews were assessed for eligibility. Data from each study was extracted using a pre-standardised data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Descriptive synthesis of the results was performed.
Results
A total of 12 papers were eligible for analysis. Only eight out of the total 20 prioritised recommendations had systematic reviews that provided evidence related to them. These systematic reviews were most commonly of critically low quality.
Conclusion
The consensus papers provide guidance and recommendations based on the consensus of expert opinion that is based on the best available evidence. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting many of these consensus statements. Efforts to further analyse interventions that aim to reduce the rates of opioid prescribing and their adverse effects should therefore continue.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Reference31 articles.
1. Curtis HJ, Croker R, Walker AJ, Richards GC, Quinlan J, Goldacre B. Opioid prescribing trends and geographical variation in England, 1998–2018: a retrospective database study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(2):140–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30471-1. 2. Forget P, Patullo C, Hill D, Ambekar A, Baldacchino A, Cata J, Chetty S, Cox FJ, de Boer HD, Dinwoodie K, Dom G, Eccleston C, Fullen B, Jutila L, Knaggs RD, Lavand’homme P, Levy N, Lobo DN, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Scherbaum N, Smith BH, van Griensven J, Gilbert S. System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:329. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07696-x. 3. Gomes T, Tadrous M, Mamdani MM, Paterson JM, Juurlink DN. The burden of opioid-related mortality in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(2):e180217. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0217. 4. Ladha KS, Neuman MD, Broms G, Bethell J, Bateman BT, Wijeysundera DN, Bell M, Hallqvist L, Svensson T, Newcomb CW, Brensinger CM, Gaskins LJ, Wunsch H. Opioid prescribing after surgery in the United States, Canada, and Sweden. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1910734. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10734. 5. Levy N, Sturgess J, Mills. “Pain as the fifth vital sign” and dependence on the “numerical pain scale” is being abandoned in the US: why? Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(3):435–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.098.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|