Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 2;2015(6):CD003348. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003348.pub3

Summary of findings 1. VAS pain scores (0 to 100): PCA versus non‐patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain.

VAS pain scores (0 to 100): PCA versus non‐patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain
Patient or population: patients with postoperative pain
Settings: hospital
Intervention: patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA)
Comparison: conventional opioid analgesia
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) No of participants
(studies) Quality of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Non‐patient controlled opioid analgesia Patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA)
Pain scores 0 to 24 h
Visual analog scale
Scale from: 0 to 100 The mean pain scores 0 to 24 h ranged across control groups from
16 to 47 The mean pain scores 0 to 24 h in the intervention groups was
8.82 lower
(13.09 to 4.54 lower)   1516
(23 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1 When sub‐analyzed by type of surgery, considerable heterogeneity exists between and within surgeries
Pain scores 25 to 48 h
Visual analog scale
Scale from: 0 to 100 The mean pain scores 25 to 48 h ranged across control groups from
16 to 37 The mean pain scores 25 to 48 h in the intervention groups was
8.82 lower
(14.15 to 3.49 lower)   609
(13 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2 When sub‐analyzed by type of surgery, considerable heterogeneity exists between and within surgeries
Pain scores 49 to 72 h
Visual analog scale
Scale from: 0 to 100 The mean pain scores 49 to 72 h ranged across control groups from
20 to 38 The mean pain scores 49 to 72 h in the intervention groups was
12.11 lower
(26.04 lower to 1.83 higher)   231
(3 studies) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3,4 Insufficient data for sub‐analysis by type of surgery
Pain scores 0 to 48 h
Visual analog scale
Scale from: 0 to 100 The mean pain scores 0 to 48 h ranged across control groups from
21 to 46 The mean pain scores 0 to 48 h in the intervention groups was
9.74 lower
(12.49 to 6.99 lower)   372
(7 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3 Insufficient data for sub‐analysis by type of surgery
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; h: hour
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1All studies unblinded.
2Unexplained heterogeneity.
3Total population size < 400.
495% confidence interval includes no effect.