Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33033091›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Perioperative patient-controlled regional analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients with critical limb ischaemia: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Si Chen, Zhonghuang Xu, Hongju Liu, Yuelun Zhang, Jiao Zhang, Yuexin Chen, Yuehong Zheng, Yuguang Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Si ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6832-1095
Zhonghuang XuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hongju LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuelun ZhangMedical Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7990-9003
Jiao ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuexin ChenDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuehong ZhengDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China yuehongzheng@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0704-5469
Yuguang HuangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBoth regional analgesia and intravenous analgesia are frequently used perioperatively for patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI). Nevertheless, the comparison of perioperative effect of regional and intravenous analgesia has not yet been thoroughly illustrated. This study will comprehensively compare patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) as two different perioperative analgesia approaches for patients with CLI. It investigates their effects on analgesia, reperfusion and the quality of recovery perioperatively, also aims to provide clinical evidence to those non-surgical patients with non-reconstructable arteries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial is a randomised, single-centre, open-label, parallel trial with target sample size of 52 in total. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to the PCRA group (group R) or the PCIA group (group I) after admission. Participants in group R will receive ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic catheterisation, followed by continuous PCRA infusion (0.2% ropivacaine 15 mL as loading dose, 8 mL/hour as background with a patient-controlled bolus of 6 mL). Participants in group I will receive PCIA (morphine is given in boluses of 1 mg as needed, background infusion at 1 mg/hour). Data will be collected at baseline (T0), 2 hours before revascularisation treatment (T1) and 2 hours before discharge (T2). The primary outcomes include the Numerical Rating Scale pain score at T1 and T2. The secondary outcomes include the perioperative transcutaneous oxygen pressure, the Tissue Haemoglobin Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at T1 and T2; the Patient Global Impression of Change and patient satisfaction at T1 and T2; the perioperative cumulative morphine consumption, the length of postoperative hospital stay and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received authorisation from the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital on 21 March 2017 (approval no. ZS-1289X). Study findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences or publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000029298). PROTOCOL VERSION: V.4CP.B2 (15 June 2020).

Indexed as

Anesthetics, LocalPostoperative PainAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAnalgesics, OpioidHumansIschemiaPain MeasurementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, Localpain managementvascular surgery

Identifiers

PMID33033091
PMCPMC7545635
OpenAlexW3092298934

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.