ArticleMedicine2019
Effects of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and analgesic effect of local infiltration analgesia and femoral nerve block after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIt is reported that both adductor canal block (ACB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) are commonly used methods for postoperative analgesia in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Currently, no record has compared the efficacy of postoperative pain relief and the influence to quadriceps strength between them. This study aims to provide a protocol to compare the efficacy and safety between ACB and FNB for the postoperative analgesia of ACL reconstruction.
methodsThis study will be performed in accordance with the guideline of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols. Online databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database will be systematically searched from their inception up May 31, 2019. All randomized controlled trials will be included in present meta-analysis. The quality of enrolled literatures will be evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of bias Tool. Statistical analysis will be calculated by the Review Manager 5.3.
resultsThis review will investigate the efficacy and safety of ACB compared with FNB in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. The primary outcomes are visual analog scale, cumulative opioid consumption during 24 hours after surgery, numerical rating scale, and the time to first straight-leg raise. The secondary outcomes include maximal voluntary isometric contraction, stretching torque at 3, 6 months' follow-up, and adverse effects.
conclusionFindings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will summarize the current evidence in postoperative analgesia for ACL reconstruction and also provide implications for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.