The effect of systemic lidocaine on post-operative opioid consumption in ambulatory surgical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 3 Summary of the quality of evidence (GRADE) for comparing systemic lidocaine to a control group for the primary and secondary outcomes of the included studies

# Studies in design (n)	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall quality of evidence^d
Postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h
5 (297)	Not serious^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^b	Undetected	⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Postoperative opioid consumption at PACU
3 (169)	Not serious^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^b	Detected^c	⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Postoperative pain at rest at 24 h
4 (218)	Not serious^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^b	Undetected	⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Postoperative pain at rest at PACU
4 (218)	Not serious^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^b	Undetected	⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Postoperative nausea and vomiting
4 (254)	Not serious^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^b	Undetected	⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate

^aMajority of studies had allocation concealment and used blinded outcome assessments; lost to follow-up was very low; the overall risk of bias was felt to be not serious
^bImprecise due to wide confidence interval; few numbers of events
^cEgger’s regression test revealed a one-sided P = 0.03
^dGrade Workshop Group grades of evidence: high quality, further research very unlikely to change confidence in estimate of effect; moderate quality, further research likely to have important impact on confidence in estimate of effect and may change estimate; low quality, further research very likely to have important impact on confidence in estimate of effect and likely to change estimate; very low quality, very uncertain about estimate

ISSN: 2047-0525