The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There are two common techniques for postoperative pain control after intra-abdominal surgery: patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous opioids and continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). It is uncertain which method has better pain control and fewer adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare PCA opioid therapy with CEA for pain control after intra-abdominal surgery in terms of analgesic efficacy, side effects, patient satisfaction and surgical outcome by meta-analysis of the relevant trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of adult patients after intra-abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two pain control regimens in terms of analgesic efficacy and side effects. In the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) group the patient should be able to operate the device himself. In the continuous epidural analgesia group there was no PCA device. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies involving 711 participants were included. The PCA group had a higher pain visual analogue scale than the CEA group during 6, 24 and 72 hour periods. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval of resting pain was 1.74 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.19), 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.33), and 0.63 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.01), respectively. The length of hospital stay and other adverse effects were not statistically different except that the incidence of pruritus was lower in the PCA group, odds ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.64). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CEA is superior to opioid PCA in relieving postoperative pain for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery, but it is associated with a higher incidence of pruritus. There is insufficient evidence to draw comparisons about the other advantages and disadvantages of these two methods of pain relief.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
Berlin, J. A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62352-5 · Cited by 478
Cited by
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Hubner, M., Nygren, J., Demartines, N., Francis, N., Rockall, T. A., Young‐Fadok, T. M., Hill, A. G., Soop, M., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y · Cited by 2,119
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Schwenk, W., Demartines, N., Roulin, D., Francis, N., McNaught, C. E., MacFie, J., Liberman, A. S., Soop, M., et al. (2013) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0 · Cited by 1,082
Lassen, K., Coolsen, M. M. E., Slim, K., Carli, F., de Aguilar‐Nascimento, J. E., Schäfer, M., Parks, R. W., Fearon, K. C. H., Lobo, D. N., Demartines, N., et al. (2013) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1771-1 · Cited by 473
Ryan, R. E., Santesso, N., Lowe, D., Hill, S., Grimshaw, J. M., Prictor, M., Kaufman, C., Cowie, G., & Taylor, M. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007768.pub3 · Cited by 273
Klek, S., Forbes, A., Gabe, S., Holst, M., Wanten, G., Irtun, Ø., Damink, S. O., Panisic-Sekeljic, M., Pelaez, R. B., Pironi, L., et al. (2016) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.04.009 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Werawatganon, T., & Charuluxananan, S.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-28
- Volume
- 2013
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- CD004088-CD004088
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W2050007485
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Status
- Retracted
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd004088.pub3
- The paper
- Werawatganon, T., & Charuluxananan, S. (2013). Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004088.pub3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.