Tolerability of different doses of oliceridine versus traditional opioids in acute pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis
This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to th...
Saved in:
Published in | Scientific reports Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 11470 - 14 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
03.04.2025
Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.74,
P
< 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28–0.47,
P
< 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91,
P
= 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57–0.88,
P
= 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41–0.65,
P
< 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. |
---|---|
AbstractList | This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.74,
P
< 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28–0.47,
P
< 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91,
P
= 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57–0.88,
P
= 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41–0.65,
P
< 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine.This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. Abstract This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28–0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57–0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41–0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28–0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57–0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41–0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine. |
ArticleNumber | 11470 |
Author | Zhu, Ying Fu, Hong Liu, Yulin |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Yulin surname: Liu fullname: Liu, Yulin organization: Chongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology – sequence: 2 givenname: Ying surname: Zhu fullname: Zhu, Ying organization: Chongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology – sequence: 3 givenname: Hong surname: Fu fullname: Fu, Hong email: fuhong1974@cqu.edu.cn organization: Chongqing University Central Hospital, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40181183$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9kstu1TAQhiNUREvpC7BAltiwCfiW2GaHKi6VKrEpa2sST45cJfbBdorOI_DW-DSlIBbYkj0affPPWP6fNychBmyal4y-ZVTod1myzuiW8q41nVG6NU-aM05l13LB-clf8WlzkfMtravjRjLzrDmVlGnGtDhrft7EGRMMfvblQOJEnJ8mTBgKcTFjPqbi7EdM3vmA5A5TXjMpCZwvPgaYSdz76F0mPhAY14JkDzVcIMAOlyr0ngDJh1xwgeJHkvDO4w8CwZEFC7SVmw_Z5xfN0wnmjBcP93nz7dPHm8sv7fXXz1eXH67bUQpdWiaY7sFo3fXAYFJGSqHEoBiOnRrRMdUbNEo6KrgcRA-0ZwP2VFApuWEozpurTddFuLX75BdIBxvB2_tETDsLqQ46o1XUqEF0iureSOhlPQDc6BR1htdOVevNprVP8fuKudjF5xHnGQLGNdvjrKKrW1f09T_obVxTfftGcSF7Yyr16oFahwXd43i_P6wCfAPGFHNOOD0ijNqjMexmDFuNYe-NYY-qYivKFQ47TH96_6fqF5SbuiA |
Cites_doi | 10.1007/s40122-021-00299-0 10.2217/pmt.15.49 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.028 10.2147/JPR.S137952 10.1007/s40265-020-01414-9 10.2147/JPR.S171013 10.2147/DDDT.S372612 10.1007/s40122-020-00216-x 10.3390/jpm14030276 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108312 10.57264/cer-2023-0041 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001220 10.3390/ph17010029 10.1111/papr.12801 10.1016/j.tcm.2023.03.006 10.1177/1060028020987679 10.1007/s40122-021-00313-5 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000363 10.1080/14740338.2021.1965989 10.1136/emermed-2022-212869 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001063 10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.011 10.1080/14656566.2021.1982893 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00582-7 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | The Author(s) 2025 2025. The Author(s). Copyright Nature Publishing Group 2025 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2025 – notice: 2025. The Author(s). – notice: Copyright Nature Publishing Group 2025 |
DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7X7 7XB 88A 88E 88I 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BHPHI CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ HCIFZ K9. LK8 M0S M1P M2P M7P PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 DOA |
DOI | 10.1038/s41598-025-95978-9 |
DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Biology Database (Alumni Edition) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Science Database (Alumni Edition) ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Natural Science Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Medical Database Science Database Biological Science Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central Basic MEDLINE - Academic DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central China ProQuest Biology Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest Science Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Basic ProQuest Science Journals ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic Publicly Available Content Database |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: C6C name: Springer Nature OA Free Journals url: http://www.springeropen.com/ sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 3 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 5 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Biology |
EISSN | 2045-2322 |
EndPage | 14 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_7097b35708694a6494aaadcd70d92d17 40181183 10_1038_s41598_025_95978_9 |
Genre | Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Chongqing Municipal Health Commission Medical Research Project(2024WSJK010);Norman Bethune Charitable Foundation ,Enze Pain Management Medical Research Project(ezmr2022-024); Chongqing Municipal Studios for Young and Middle-Aged Top Medical Talents ,Chongqing Municipal Health Commission Project [ZQNYXGDRCGZS2019006]. |
GroupedDBID | 0R~ 4.4 53G 5VS 7X7 88E 88I 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AAKDD AASML ABDBF ABUWG ACGFS ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AJTQC ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS AZQEC BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BHPHI BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU DIK DWQXO EBD EBLON EBS ESX FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HH5 HMCUK HYE KQ8 LK8 M1P M2P M7P M~E NAO OK1 PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO RNT RNTTT RPM SNYQT UKHRP AARCD AAYXX CITATION PHGZM PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7XB 88A 8FK K9. M48 PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 PUEGO |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-13186a98856a1af7944373b71ec57ced1769e974d0324b36a061be603044291e3 |
IEDL.DBID | AAJSJ |
ISSN | 2045-2322 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:32:05 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 18:51:09 EDT 2025 Wed Aug 13 09:13:20 EDT 2025 Sat May 17 01:30:16 EDT 2025 Tue Aug 05 12:08:39 EDT 2025 Fri Apr 04 01:15:54 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | Oliceridine Tolerability Acute pain Safety Meta-analysis |
Language | English |
License | 2025. The Author(s). |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c438t-13186a98856a1af7944373b71ec57ced1769e974d0324b36a061be603044291e3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-95978-9 |
PMID | 40181183 |
PQID | 3186234699 |
PQPubID | 2041939 |
PageCount | 14 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7097b35708694a6494aaadcd70d92d17 proquest_miscellaneous_3186353538 proquest_journals_3186234699 pubmed_primary_40181183 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_025_95978_9 springer_journals_10_1038_s41598_025_95978_9 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2025-04-03 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-04-03 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2025 text: 2025-04-03 day: 03 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | London |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
PublicationTitle | Scientific reports |
PublicationTitleAbbrev | Sci Rep |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Sci Rep |
PublicationYear | 2025 |
Publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
Publisher_xml | – name: Nature Publishing Group UK – name: Nature Publishing Group – name: Nature Portfolio |
References | I Qureshi (95978_CR3) 2023; 40 J Biskupiak (95978_CR15) 2024; 13 ER Viscusi (95978_CR23) 2016; 6 MJ Page (95978_CR28) 2021; 88 TL Beard (95978_CR4) 2021; 10 Y Liu (95978_CR6) 2021; 55 Y Noufal (95978_CR5) 2023; 241 A Wang (95978_CR18) 2023; 17 A Burashnikov (95978_CR26) 2021; 18 AD Kaye (95978_CR16) 2021; 10 A Markham (95978_CR7) 2020; 80 Z Jin (95978_CR17) 2022; 23 Q Song (95978_CR24) 2023; 77 NK Singla (95978_CR13) 2019; 19 HS Tan (95978_CR11) 2021; 20 N Rajan (95978_CR19) 2021; 34 A Wolf (95978_CR10) 2024; 19 T Schlesinger (95978_CR20) 2023; 36 BJ Shea (95978_CR29) 2017; 358 M Lee (95978_CR25) 2024; 14 A El Sherbini (95978_CR27) 2024; 34 N Daksla (95978_CR14) 2023; 17 GB Hammer (95978_CR2) 2021; 10 JF Fiore Jr (95978_CR22) 2022; 399 ER Viscusi (95978_CR8) 2016; 157 ER Viscusi (95978_CR12) 2019; 12 N Singla (95978_CR9) 2017; 10 O Amaechi (95978_CR1) 2021; 104 DG Soergel (95978_CR21) 2014; 155 |
References_xml | – volume: 10 start-page: 1343 issue: 2 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR2 publication-title: Pain Ther. doi: 10.1007/s40122-021-00299-0 – volume: 6 start-page: 19 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 95978_CR23 publication-title: Pain Manag. doi: 10.2217/pmt.15.49 – volume: 18 start-page: 2177 issue: 12 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR26 publication-title: Heart Rhythm doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.028 – volume: 358 year: 2017 ident: 95978_CR29 publication-title: Br. Med. J. – volume: 10 start-page: 2413 year: 2017 ident: 95978_CR9 publication-title: J. Pain Res. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S137952 – volume: 80 start-page: 1739 issue: 16 year: 2020 ident: 95978_CR7 publication-title: Drugs doi: 10.1007/s40265-020-01414-9 – volume: 19 issue: 2 year: 2024 ident: 95978_CR10 publication-title: PLoS ONE – volume: 12 start-page: 927 year: 2019 ident: 95978_CR12 publication-title: J. Pain Res. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S171013 – volume: 17 start-page: 875 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR14 publication-title: Drug Des. Devel. Ther. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S372612 – volume: 10 start-page: 401 issue: 1 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR4 publication-title: Pain Ther. doi: 10.1007/s40122-020-00216-x – volume: 104 start-page: 63 issue: 1 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR1 publication-title: Am. Fam. Physician. – volume: 88 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR28 publication-title: Int. J. Surg. – volume: 14 start-page: 276 issue: 3 year: 2024 ident: 95978_CR25 publication-title: J Pers Med. doi: 10.3390/jpm14030276 – volume: 241 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR5 publication-title: Pharmacol. Ther. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108312 – volume: 13 start-page: e230041 issue: 5 year: 2024 ident: 95978_CR15 publication-title: J. Comp. Eff. Res. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0041 – volume: 36 start-page: 117 issue: 1 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR20 publication-title: Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001220 – volume: 17 start-page: 29 issue: 1 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR18 publication-title: Pharmaceuticals doi: 10.3390/ph17010029 – volume: 19 start-page: 715 issue: 7 year: 2019 ident: 95978_CR13 publication-title: Pain Pract. doi: 10.1111/papr.12801 – volume: 34 start-page: 279 issue: 5 year: 2024 ident: 95978_CR27 publication-title: Trends Cardiovasc. Med. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2023.03.006 – volume: 55 start-page: 1283 issue: 10 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR6 publication-title: Ann. Pharmacother. doi: 10.1177/1060028020987679 – volume: 10 start-page: 1003 issue: 2 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR16 publication-title: Pain Ther. doi: 10.1007/s40122-021-00313-5 – volume: 157 start-page: 264 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 95978_CR8 publication-title: Pain doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000363 – volume: 20 start-page: 1291 issue: 11 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR11 publication-title: Expert Opin. Drug Saf. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2021.1965989 – volume: 40 start-page: 499 issue: 7 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR3 publication-title: Emerg. Med. J. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212869 – volume: 34 start-page: 695 issue: 6 year: 2021 ident: 95978_CR19 publication-title: Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001063 – volume: 155 start-page: 1829 issue: 9 year: 2014 ident: 95978_CR21 publication-title: Pain doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.011 – volume: 23 start-page: 9 issue: 1 year: 2022 ident: 95978_CR17 publication-title: Expert Opin. Pharmacother. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2021.1982893 – volume: 77 start-page: 537 issue: 5 year: 2023 ident: 95978_CR24 publication-title: Acta Med. Okayama. – volume: 399 start-page: 2280 issue: 10343 year: 2022 ident: 95978_CR22 publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00582-7 |
SSID | ssj0000529419 |
Score | 2.443852 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A... Abstract This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain... |
SourceID | doaj proquest pubmed crossref springer |
SourceType | Open Website Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 11470 |
SubjectTerms | 692/1807/1676 692/1807/1876 692/1807/244 692/1807/4018 692/1807/410 692/308 692/308/409 692/699 Acute pain Acute Pain - drug therapy Analgesia Analgesics Analgesics, Opioid - administration & dosage Analgesics, Opioid - adverse effects Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use Anesthesia Benchmarks Clinical trials Dose-Response Relationship, Drug Drug therapy Humanities and Social Sciences Humans Hypoxemia Meta-analysis Morphine Morphine - administration & dosage Morphine - adverse effects Morphine - therapeutic use multidisciplinary Nausea Oliceridine Pain Pain management Pain Management - methods Pain perception Pruritus Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Safety Science Science (multidisciplinary) Sensitivity analysis Spiro Compounds - administration & dosage Spiro Compounds - adverse effects Spiro Compounds - therapeutic use Systematic review Thiophenes Tolerability Vomiting |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3Ni9UwEA-yIHgRv-26SgRvWrZpvpq9reKyCHrahb2FaZLCA7d9vPYd9k_wv3am6Xu7ouJFCqWkpU0yvzAzncxvGHuXBFgLIMrOyRYdFAdU5kWVVMBOQhvQpKeI7tdv5vxSfbnSV3dKfdGesEwPnCfu2FbOtlJbNL2dAqPwBBBDtFV0dRRzHjnqvDvOVGb1rp0SbsmSqWRzPKKmomyyWpdOk-vkftFEM2H_n6zM3yKks-I5e8QeLhYjP809fczupf4Ju59rSN48ZT8uhu9pk9m2b_jQ8V3Jk4nHYUwjNRH3LyIN1VTitA1jO_JpA3GV_wPyYb0aVnHkq55D2E6JrwEvr_cbY0448FvGZ56zXTj0kV-nCUpYeE2escuzzxefzsulvkIZlGyoCr1oDLim0QYEdLgyieeotSIFbUPCyTUuob8RK7S6WmkAdX-bDAVTUYuJJJ-zg37o00vGhe5sG0MHIaCNCGg2JpGidqYRSVVKFOz9bq79OtNo-Dn8LRufJeNRMn6WjHcF-0ji2D9JFNhzAwLDL8Dw_wJGwY52wvTLuhw9jbiWyjj8xtv9bVxRFCaBPg3b_IzUeDQFe5FBsO8JQRddMlmwDztU3L787wM6_B8DesUe1ARf2jYkj9jBtNmm12gRTe2bGfw_AeNdBVM priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection dbid: 7X7 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3di9QwEA96Ivgifl_1lAi-ablm0zaNL6LicQj6dAf7FqZJKgtes267D_cn-F8706RdxA8KpaShpJlfMjOZ5DeMvfIClAIQeadliw6KBkrzUuaUwE5Ca9Gkp4jul6_1-WX5eV2t04LbkLZVznPiNFG7YGmN_BSxh5oanTn9bvsjp6xRFF1NKTRusltEXUaoVmu1rLFQFKsUOp2VKWRzOqC-ojNlqyrH6uhA6d_00UTb_zdb84846aR-zu6xu8lu5O-joO-zG75_wG7HTJLXD9nPi_Dd7yLn9jUPHZ8Tn4zchcEPVEQMwIg3VFae02aM_cDHHbhNXA3kYbsJGzfwTc_B7kfPt4CPV8v2mLcc-IH3mcczLxx6x6_8CDkkdpNH7PLs08XH8zxlWchtKRvKRY89C7ppqhoEdDg-ie2oVcLbSlnvhKq1R6_DFWh7tbIGtABaX1NIFXWZ8PIxO-pD748ZF1WnWmc7sBYtRUDj0QvvKl03wpdFKTL2eu5rs41kGmYKgsvGRMkYlIyZJGN0xj6QOJaaRIQ9FYTdN5PGlVGFVq2sFHpmuoS6xBuAs04VTq-w7Rk7mYVp0ugczAFLGXu5vMZxRcES6H3YxzqywqvJ2JMIgqUlBGB0zGTG3syoOHz83z_09P9tecburAiYtC1InrCjcbf3z9HiGdsXE6x_AV7D_XA priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
Title | Tolerability of different doses of oliceridine versus traditional opioids in acute pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41598-025-95978-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40181183 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3186234699 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3186353538 https://doaj.org/article/7097b35708694a6494aaadcd70d92d17 |
Volume | 15 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1La9wwEBZ5UOil9JG2btNFhd4aU8uyJau3zZIQFhpCmsDexNiSy0JjL2vvIT-h_7ozfoXS9FAMtpFlW_KMPDOa0TeMffICtAYQYWlkjgaKAUrzkoSUwE5CXqBKTx7db5fq4jZZrtLVHovHtTBd0H4Hadn9psfosC8NChpaDBanoUnJ8jH77JCg2pG3D-fz5fflNLNCvqtEmGGFTCSzR27-Qwp1YP2PaZh_eUc7oXP-nD0btEU-79v3gu356iV70uePvH_Fft3UP_22R9q-53XJx3QnLXd14xsqItxf5DIUUZ5TCMau4e0W3LqfA-T1Zl2vXcPXFYdi13q-ATy9m4JivnLgD2jPvF_pwqFy_M63EMKAaXLEbs_PbhYX4ZBbISwSmVEGepEpMFmWKhBQ4qgkjKNcC1-kuvBOaGU82houQo0rlwpQ7udekSMVJZjw8jU7qOrKv2VcpKXOXVFCUaB-CKgyeuFdalQmfBIlImCfx29tNz2Ehu1c3zKzPWUsUsZ2lLEmYKdEjqkmwV93BfX2hx3YwerI6FymGu0xk4BKcAfgCqcjZ2Jse8COR2LaYUw2lnocy0QZfMfH6TKOJnKRQOXrXV9HprhlAXvTM8HUEmJbNMdkwE5Grnh4-L879O7_qr9nT2NiVAoOksfsoN3u_AfUe9p8xvb1Ss8Gdsfj6dnl1TWWLtRi1s0l_AZC-gEd |
linkProvider | Springer Nature |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1bi9QwFD6sK6Iv4t3qqhH0Scs2k7ZpBBFvy6x7eZqFeYunTUYG3HacdpD5Cf4Zf6Pn9DKDeHlbCqWkJaQ5X3LOyUnOB_DMS9QaUYYzo3JyUAwyzUscMoGdwrwgk54juien6fgs_jRNpjvwczgLw9sqhzmxnahdVfAa-T5hjzQ1OXPmzeJbyKxRHF0dKDQ6WBz59Xdy2erXhx9Ivs9Ho4OPk_fjsGcVCItYZcy9TjWhybIkRYkzwiNn98m19EWiC--kTo0nK9tFZGvkKkXSeLlPOYRIc7f0iuq9BJdJ8Ubs7Omp3qzpcNQslqY_mxOpbL8m_chn2EZJaBJ22Mxv-q-lCfibbftHXLZVdwc34Hpvp4q3HbBuwo4vb8GVjrlyfRt-TKqvftnl-F6LaiYGopVGuKr2NRdxxmHCNylHL3jzx6oWzRLdvFt9FNViXs1dLealwGLVeLFAejzfbMd5JVBs80yL7oyNwNKJc99giH02lTtwdiH9fxd2y6r090HIZKZzV8ywKMgyRTJWvfQuMWkmfRzFMoAXQ1_bRZe8w7ZBd5XZTjKWJGNbyVgTwDsWx-ZLTrzdFlTLL7Yfx1ZHRucq0eQJmhjTmG6IrnA6cmZEbQ9gbxCm7WeD2m6xG8DTzWsaxxycwdJXq-4bldCVBXCvA8GmJTxgyBFUAbwcULGt_N8_9OD_bXkCV8eTk2N7fHh69BCujRikvCVJ7cFus1z5R2RtNfnjFuICPl_0mPoF0ik3jA |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1ti9NAEB7OHopfxHejp66gnzS027xsVhDxvCt3npZD7uC-7U2yGyl4SW1SpD_Bv-SvcyYvLeLLt6MQShKWbeeZnZmd2XkAnjuJSiFKP9dBSgGKRqZ5CX0msAswzcil54zup2l8cBp-OIvOtuBnfxaGyyr7NbFZqG2Z8R75kLBHlpqCOT3Mu7KI473J2_k3nxmkONPa02m0EDlyq-8UvlVvDvdI1i_G48n-yfsDv2MY8LMwSJiHnUZFnSRRjBJzwiZ3-kmVdFmkMmelirUjj9uOyO9IgxjJ-qUu5nQirePSBTTuFdhWHBUNYHt3f3r8eb3Dwzm0UOrupM4oSIYVWUs-0TaOfB1x-KZ_s4YNacDfPN0_srSN8ZvchBud1yretTC7BVuuuA1XWx7L1R34cVJ-dYu24_dKlLnoaVdqYcvKVXyL-w8T2slUOsGlIMtK1Au0s3YvUpTzWTmzlZgVArNl7cQc6evFujjntUCx6Tot2hM3AgsrLlyNPna9Ve7C6aVI4B4MirJwD0DIKFepzXLMMvJTkVxXJ52NdJxIF45C6cHL_r8287aVh2lS8EFiWskYkoxpJGO0B7ssjvWb3Ia7uVEuvphOq40aaZUGkaK4UIcYh3RBtJlVI6vHNHcPdnphmm5tqMwGyR48Wz8mreZUDRauXLbvBBF9Eg_utyBYz4TVh8LCwINXPSo2g__7Bz38_1yewjXSJ_PxcHr0CK6PGaNcnxTswKBeLN1jcr3q9EmHcQHnl61WvwDg0D0n |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tolerability+of+different+doses+of+oliceridine+versus+traditional+opioids+in+acute+pain+management%3A+a+systematic+review+and+meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Scientific+reports&rft.au=Liu%2C+Yulin&rft.au=Zhu%2C+Ying&rft.au=Fu%2C+Hong&rft.date=2025-04-03&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038%2Fs41598-025-95978-9&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1038_s41598_025_95978_9 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2045-2322&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2045-2322&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2045-2322&client=summon |