SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on postoperative analgesia and recovery characteristics: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dexmedetomidine and Postoperative Gastrointestinal Recovery: A Critical Narrative Review of Direct Enteric and Opioid-Sparing Pathways.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDexmedetomidine and lidocaine are commonly used adjuvants in postoperative pain management; however, their comparative efficacy is unclear. This meta-analysis compared the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on postoperative analgesia and recovery.
methodsCochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched from their inception to July 1, 2024, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia. The primary outcomes were the postoperative pain score at 24 h and postoperative opioid consumption. The secondary outcomes included early postoperative pain scores, intraoperative opioid/anesthetic requirements, hemodynamic parameters, recovery characteristics, and inflammatory markers.
resultsTwenty-four studies (1,697 patients) were included. There was no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and lidocaine in terms of pain scores at 24 h (mean difference [MD]: 0.01, p = 0.88) or overall postoperative opioid consumption (standardized MD[SMD]: -0.51, p = 0.06). However, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower pain scores at 2-4 h postoperatively (MD:-0.41, p = 0.02), reduced intraoperative anesthetic agent requirements (SMD:-1.1, p = 0.004), a longer time to rescue analgesic (MD: -29.93 min, p < 0.00001), and improved quality of recovery scores (SMD: 1.72, p = 0.01). Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower heart rate and blood pressure compared to lidocaine, without differences in other recovery characteristics and inflammation.
conclusionBoth dexmedetomidine and lidocaine are effective adjuvants for improving postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, dexmedetomidine has shown advantages in terms of early pain control, reduced anesthetic requirements, and improved quality of recovery. The choice of these agents should be based on individual patient factors and specific surgical procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.