Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Out of the lab and into the wild: The influence of portion size on food intake in laboratory vs. real-world settings.

External influences on eating behaviour, such as portion size, have been reliably shown to influence food intake in the laboratory. However, little research has examined whether laboratory settings under or overestimate the effect that external influences have on food intake compared to when studied in the real-world. In Study 1, 60 participants (mean age = 32 years) were randomized to consume a large (200 g) or small (100 g) portion of popcorn under controlled laboratory conditions and during a separate session in their home. Results showed that the effect of portion size on food intake was larger at home (d = 0.97) than in the laboratory (d = 0.56). Furthermore, participants reported feeling more relaxed eating at home compared to the laboratory. In Study 2, we examined whether comparable results were observed in a semi-naturalistic laboratory designed to resemble a home setting. 59 participants (mean age = 28 years) completed the same procedure as Study 1 in a standard and a semi-naturalistic laboratory setting. Although participants reported having higher levels of private self-awareness in the standard laboratory, the effect that portion size had on food intake did not differ between the standard laboratory (d = 0.50) and the semi-naturalistic laboratory (d = 0.49). The impact that external influences on eating, such as portion size, have on food intake in the real-world may be underestimated when studied under laboratory conditions.