Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 694

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Efficacy of Preemptive Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain Management: A Meta-Analysis

Ong, Cliff K.-S., Lirk, Philipp, Seymour, Robin A., Jenkins, Brian J.·2005·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

In Brief Whether preemptive analgesic interventions are more effective than conventional regimens in managing acute postoperative pain remains controversial. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that specifically compared preoperative analgesic interventions with similar postoperative analgesic interventions via the same route. The retrieved reports were stratified according to five types of analgesic interventions: epidural analgesia, local anesthetic wound infiltration, systemic N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists, systemic nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and systemic opioids. The primary outcome measures analyzed were the pain intensity scores, supplemental analgesic consumption, and time to first analgesic consumption. Sixty-six studies with data from 3261 patients were analyzed. Data were combined by using a fixed-effect model, and the effect size index (ES) used was the standardized mean difference. When the data from all three outcome measures were combined, the ES was most pronounced for preemptive administration of epidural analgesia (ES, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.47), local anesthetic wound infiltration (ES, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17–0.40), and NSAID administration (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27–0.48). Whereas preemptive epidural analgesia resulted in consistent improvements in all three outcome variables, preemptive local anesthetic wound infiltration and NSAID administration improved analgesic consumption and time to first rescue analgesic request, but not postoperative pain scores. The least proof of efficacy was found in the case of systemic NMDA antagonist (ES, 0.09; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.22) and opioid (ES, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.07) administration, and the results remain equivocal. IMPLICATIONS: This meta-analysis assesses the ability of preemptive analgesic interventions to attenuate postoperative pain scores, decrease supplemental postoperative analgesic requirements, and prolong time to first rescue analgesic request. Using these outcome measures, preemptive analgesia showed an overall beneficial effect after epidural analgesia, local wound infiltration, and systemic nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug administration.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/01.ane.0000144428.98767.0e

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 694

Metadata

Authors
Ong, C. K.-S., Lirk, P., Seymour, R. A., & Jenkins, B. J.
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2005-03
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
757-773
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081017730
Cited by
694
References
4
FWCI
4.75
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: The Efficacy of Preemptive Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain Management: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/01.ane.0000144428.98767.0e
The paper
Ong, C. K.-S., Lirk, P., Seymour, R. A., & Jenkins, B. J. (2005). The Efficacy of Preemptive Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain Management: A Meta-Analysis. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000144428.98767.0e

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.