Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29046933›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2017

[Regional anesthesia - are the standards changing?]

T Volk, C Kubulus

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T VolkKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes, Geb. Nr. 57, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. thomas.volk@uniklinikum-saarland.de.
C KubulusKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes, Geb. Nr. 57, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland.
Saarland University · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regional anesthesia has undergone many changes over the years and the increasing use of ultrasound has certainly played an important role in this. Apart from individual case reports in the literature of very different blocking options, some new procedures seem to have become established and can be broadly applied. Among these are blockades, by which ultrasound-guided injection of local anesthetics is carried out in fascial or muscular layers rather than around target nerves (e.g. cervical plexus blocks and truncal blocks). In addition, the precision with which ultrasound can be used to identify nerve structures led to an increasingly better definition of targets exemplified for interscalene or femoral nerve blocks. The use of ultrasound also seems to be helpful in the performance of neuraxial blocks, particularly in obese patients or patients with a difficult anatomy. With the implementation 10 years ago of a registry for safety in regional anesthesia and acute pain therapy by the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA), it has been possible to answer important safety questions and define protective measures (e.g. tunnelling, antibiotic prophylaxis and sedation). Moreover, this registry can be used as a benchmark to compare the quality of regional anesthesia in individual hospitals with all other participating centers.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ConductionHumansNerve BlockPatient SafetyUltrasonography, InterventionalCentral nerve blockPeripheral nerve blockRegistrySafety

Identifiers

PMID29046933
OpenAlexW2765373503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.