The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perioperative Single Dose Systemic Dexamethasone for Postoperative Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
Background: Dexamethasone is frequently administered in the perioperative period to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. In contrast, the analgesic effects of dexamethasone are not well defined. The authors performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the dose-dependent analgesic effects of perioperative dexamethasone. Methods: We followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of a single dose systemic dexamethasone on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Effects of dexamethasone dose were evaluated by pooling studies into three dosage groups: low (less than 0.1 mg/kg), intermediate (0.11-0.2 mg/kg) and high (≥ 0.21 mg/kg). Results: Twenty-four randomized clinical trials with 2,751 subjects were included. The mean (95% CI) combined effects favored dexamethasone over placebo for pain at rest (≤ 4 h, -0.32 [0.47 to -0.18], 24 h, -0.49 [-0.67 to -0.31]) and with movement (≤ 4 h, -0.64 [-0.86 to -0.41], 24 h, -0.47 [-0.71 to -0.24]). Opioid consumption was decreased to a similar extent with moderate -0.82 (-1.30 to -0.42) and high -0.85 (-1.24 to -0.46) dexamethasone, but not decreased with low-dose dexamethasone -0.18 (-0.39-0.03). No increase in analgesic effectiveness or reduction in opioid use could be demonstrated between the high- and intermediate-dose dexamethasone. Preoperative administration of dexamethasone appears to produce a more consistent analgesic effect compared with intraoperative administration. Conclusion: Dexamethasone at doses more than 0.1 mg/kg is an effective adjunct in multimodal strategies to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after surgery. The preoperative administration of the drug produces less variation of effects on pain outcomes.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Persistent Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery
Gärtner, R., Jensen, M.-B., Nielsen, J., Ewertz, M., Kroman, N., & Kehlet, H. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1568 · Cited by 908
Cited by
Waldron, N. H., Jones, C. A., Gan, T. J., Allen, T. K., & Habib, A. S. (2013) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aes431 · Cited by 659
Manuylova, E., Calvi, L. M., Vates, G. E., Hastings, C., & Shafiq, I. (2015) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep15652.or · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- De Oliveira, G. S., Almeida, M. D., Benzon, H. T., & McCarthy, R. J.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2011-09-01
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 575-588
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014772207
- Cited by
- 774
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 34.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Perioperative Single Dose Systemic Dexamethasone for Postoperative Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e31822a24c2
- The paper
- De Oliveira, G. S., Almeida, M. D., Benzon, H. T., & McCarthy, R. J. (2011). Perioperative Single Dose Systemic Dexamethasone for Postoperative Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e31822a24c2
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.