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
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 qualit...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-08-01
|
| Series: | BMC Anesthesiology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02243-5 |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1471-2253 |