Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962328›Full record

SynthesisKorean journal of anesthesiology2021

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks compared to thoracic epidurals or multimodal analgesia for midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jonathan G Bailey, Catherine W Morgan, Russell Christie, Janny Xue Chen Ke, M Kwesi Kwofie, Vishal Uppal

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Association of Inflammatory Profile DuringTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Fascial plane blocks: moving from the expansionist to the reductionist era.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan G BaileyDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Catherine W MorganDalhousie University Faculty of Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Russell ChristieDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Janny Xue Chen KeDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
M Kwesi KwofieDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Vishal UppalDepartment of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) have been investigated to control pain for abdominal surgery via midline laparotomy while avoiding the adverse events of opioid or epidural analgesia. The review compiles the evidence comparing CPNBs to multimodal and epidural analgesia.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review using broad search terms in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane. Primary outcomes were pain scores and cumulative opioid consumption at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We rated the quality of the evidence using Cochrane and GRADE recommendations. The results were synthesized by meta-analysis using Revman.

resultsOur final selection included 26 studies (1,646 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in pain control comparing CPNBs to either multimodal or epidural analgesia (low quality evidence). Less opioids were consumed when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (mean difference [MD]: -16.13, 95% CI [-32.36, 0.10]), low quality evidence) and less when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -31.52, 95% CI [-42.81, -20.22], low quality evidence). The length of hospital stay was shorter when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (MD: -0.78 days, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.27], low quality evidence) and shorter when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -1.41 days, 95% CI [-2.45, -0.36], low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in PONV comparing CPNBs to multimodal (high quality evidence) or epidural analgesia (moderate quality evidence).

conclusionsCPNBs should be considered a viable alternative to epidural analgesia when contraindications to epidural placement exist for patients undergoing midline laparotomies.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, EpiduralHumansLaparotomyPeripheral NervesPostoperative PainAbdominal surgeryCathetersConduction anesthesiaLaparotomyMultimodal analgesiaNerve blockStatistics

Identifiers

PMID32962328
PMCPMC8497905
OpenAlexW3088470400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.