阿片类药物管理在外科环境中的影响:范围审查。

IF 5.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
PAIN® Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003594
Dereje Zewdu Assefa, Ting Xia, Yonas Getaye Tefera, Monica Jung, Suzanne Nielsen
{"title":"阿片类药物管理在外科环境中的影响:范围审查。","authors":"Dereje Zewdu Assefa, Ting Xia, Yonas Getaye Tefera, Monica Jung, Suzanne Nielsen","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Opioid stewardship programs have been implemented in many countries to reduce harms related to prescription opioid use. Yet, there is an evidence gap on the impact of these programs in surgical settings. This systematic scoping review aimed to examine the impact of opioid stewardship on opioid use and clinical outcomes, alongside assessing adherence, and barriers to its implementation in surgical settings. A systematic search strategy was developed and applied among 7 electronic databases for published literature. In total, 100 eligible articles were included in the review. Most studies showed that opioid stewardship reduced the quantity of opioid use (in 83/88 studies; 94%) and the number of days of opioid supplied (15/18; 83%). No effect was seen on the rate of opioid refills (34/44; 78%), postoperative pain scores (22/23; 96%), and length of hospital stay (12/15; 80%). The adherence rates ranged from 32% to 100%, with considerable heterogeneity in the indicators used to measure the quality use of opioids. Logistical issues, patients' demand for analgesics, clinicians' uncertainty regarding the efficacy of nonopioid analgesics, and a lack of role allocation were reported as major barriers to implementation. Opioid stewardship can improve the quality use of opioids without adversely affecting clinical outcomes. The variety of opioid stewardship types, measurement metrics, study designs, and different surgeries pose challenges in determining causal relationships. Future prospective studies using standardized approaches are needed to develop more robust evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":"2249-2260"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts of opioid stewardship in surgical settings: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Dereje Zewdu Assefa, Ting Xia, Yonas Getaye Tefera, Monica Jung, Suzanne Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Opioid stewardship programs have been implemented in many countries to reduce harms related to prescription opioid use. Yet, there is an evidence gap on the impact of these programs in surgical settings. This systematic scoping review aimed to examine the impact of opioid stewardship on opioid use and clinical outcomes, alongside assessing adherence, and barriers to its implementation in surgical settings. A systematic search strategy was developed and applied among 7 electronic databases for published literature. In total, 100 eligible articles were included in the review. Most studies showed that opioid stewardship reduced the quantity of opioid use (in 83/88 studies; 94%) and the number of days of opioid supplied (15/18; 83%). No effect was seen on the rate of opioid refills (34/44; 78%), postoperative pain scores (22/23; 96%), and length of hospital stay (12/15; 80%). The adherence rates ranged from 32% to 100%, with considerable heterogeneity in the indicators used to measure the quality use of opioids. Logistical issues, patients' demand for analgesics, clinicians' uncertainty regarding the efficacy of nonopioid analgesics, and a lack of role allocation were reported as major barriers to implementation. Opioid stewardship can improve the quality use of opioids without adversely affecting clinical outcomes. The variety of opioid stewardship types, measurement metrics, study designs, and different surgeries pose challenges in determining causal relationships. Future prospective studies using standardized approaches are needed to develop more robust evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PAIN®\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2249-2260\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PAIN®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003594\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003594","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:阿片类药物管理项目已经在许多国家实施,以减少与处方阿片类药物使用相关的危害。然而,这些程序在外科环境中的影响还存在证据差距。本系统的范围审查旨在检查阿片类药物管理对阿片类药物使用和临床结果的影响,同时评估其在外科环境中实施的依从性和障碍。在7个已发表文献电子数据库中建立了系统的检索策略。总共有100篇符合条件的文章被纳入评审。大多数研究表明,阿片类药物管理减少了阿片类药物的使用量(在83/88项研究中;94%)和阿片类药物供应天数(15/18;83%)。阿片类药物再填充率未见影响(34/44;78%),术后疼痛评分(22/23;96%)和住院时间(12/15;80%)。依从率从32%到100%不等,用于衡量阿片类药物使用质量的指标存在相当大的异质性。据报道,后勤问题、患者对镇痛药的需求、临床医生对非阿片类镇痛药疗效的不确定性以及缺乏角色分配是实施的主要障碍。阿片类药物管理可以提高阿片类药物的使用质量,而不会对临床结果产生不利影响。阿片类药物管理类型、测量指标、研究设计和不同手术的多样性对确定因果关系提出了挑战。未来需要使用标准化方法进行前瞻性研究,以获得更有力的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impacts of opioid stewardship in surgical settings: a scoping review.

Abstract: Opioid stewardship programs have been implemented in many countries to reduce harms related to prescription opioid use. Yet, there is an evidence gap on the impact of these programs in surgical settings. This systematic scoping review aimed to examine the impact of opioid stewardship on opioid use and clinical outcomes, alongside assessing adherence, and barriers to its implementation in surgical settings. A systematic search strategy was developed and applied among 7 electronic databases for published literature. In total, 100 eligible articles were included in the review. Most studies showed that opioid stewardship reduced the quantity of opioid use (in 83/88 studies; 94%) and the number of days of opioid supplied (15/18; 83%). No effect was seen on the rate of opioid refills (34/44; 78%), postoperative pain scores (22/23; 96%), and length of hospital stay (12/15; 80%). The adherence rates ranged from 32% to 100%, with considerable heterogeneity in the indicators used to measure the quality use of opioids. Logistical issues, patients' demand for analgesics, clinicians' uncertainty regarding the efficacy of nonopioid analgesics, and a lack of role allocation were reported as major barriers to implementation. Opioid stewardship can improve the quality use of opioids without adversely affecting clinical outcomes. The variety of opioid stewardship types, measurement metrics, study designs, and different surgeries pose challenges in determining causal relationships. Future prospective studies using standardized approaches are needed to develop more robust evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信