ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2021
Systematic review and meta-analysis of ropivacaine use in laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the efficacy of all forms of ropivacaine administration for the management of pain and opioid use, specifically in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials matching our eligibility criteria. Outcomes of interest included: Pain intensity (measured either by visual analog scale score or by numerical rating scale score), QoR-40 score (Overall quality of recovery tool, designed to measure physical comfort, physical independence, pain, emotional status, and need for support), and the need for opioid rescue. We performed the analysis under the fixed-effects model for homogeneous data and random-effects model for heterogeneous data. Most heterogeneous data were solved by the leave-one-out method, in cases where this was not successful, we then proceeded to conduct at least one subgroup meta-analysis in an attempt to solve heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. A total of five clinical trials were included. Regarding the pain score, there was no significant difference between either group [standardized mean difference=-0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-0.56, 0.23); p=0.41]. The analysis of the overall RoQ40 scores favored the ropivacaine group over the control group significantly [mean difference (MD)=17.68, 95% CI: (1.48, 33.87); p<0.001]. Regarding the use of opioids, the analysis revealed no significant difference between either group [MD=-2.57, 95% CI: (-6.62, 1.49); p=0.21]. Ropivacaine administration by any method does not seem to be effective in reducing pain or reducing the need for opioid use after laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures; however, the administration did show a significant improvement in the patient's "overall quality of recovery," as measured using the QoR-40 tool.
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.