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 evidenced |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h | ||||||
| 5 (297) | Not seriousa | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousb | Undetected |
⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate |
| Postoperative opioid consumption at PACU | ||||||
| 3 (169) | Not seriousa | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousb | Detectedc |
⨁⨁◯◯ Low |
| Postoperative pain at rest at 24 h | ||||||
| 4 (218) | Not seriousa | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousb | Undetected |
⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate |
| Postoperative pain at rest at PACU | ||||||
| 4 (218) | Not seriousa | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousb | Undetected |
⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate |
| Postoperative nausea and vomiting | ||||||
| 4 (254) | Not seriousa | Not serious | Not serious | Seriousb | 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