Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34673125›Full record

SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)

Erector spinae plane block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Idelberto do Val Ribeiro Junior, Vanessa Henriques Carvalho, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06771466 (Patients' Satisfaction for Pain Control Modalities After Caesarean Section Using Erector Spinae Plain Block Vs Lateral Quadratus Lumborum Block. a Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06771466 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Patients' Satisfaction for Pain Control Modalities After Caesarean Section Using Erector Spinae Plain Block Vs Lateral Quadratus Lumborum Block. a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWael Sayed El GharabawyRan2025 to 2025Enrolled126ConditionsSatisfaction, Pain Management After SurgeryArmsBilateral Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block (group E), Bilateral Ultrasound-guided Quadratus Lumborum, Lateral approach (group Q)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Fascial plane blocks: Will they flourish or perish with time?Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
    Article
  15. 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

3 authors.

Idelberto do Val Ribeiro JuniorUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Vanessa Henriques CarvalhoUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Departamento de Anestesiologia, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Luiz Gustavo Oliveira BritoUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Departamento de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Campinas, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: lgobrito@unicamp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundErector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a regional block that may be used for several surgeries. However, the evidence regarding obstetrical procedures is not pooled in the literature.

objectivesTo assess whether ESPB improves the postoperative pain after cesarean section by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsThe protocol of this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192760). We included randomized controlled trials from databases until August 2020. The primary outcome was pain measured on a visual analogic scale; secondary outcomes were analgesic duration, postoperative opioid dose within the 24 hours, nausea/vomiting. The risk of bias and the GRADE criteria to assess quality of evidence were analyzed.

resultsFrom 436 retrieved studies, three were selected. There was no difference in the pain scores between ESPB and controls at rest after surgery at 4 h (mean difference [MD] = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.72; I² = 0%; very low certainty), 12 h (MD = -1.00; 95% CI: -2.00 to -0.00; I² = 0%, low certainty) and 24 h (MD = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.20; I² = 50%; very low certainty). There was a smaller consumption of tramadol with ESPB compared with controls (MD = -47.66; 95% CI: -77.24 to -18.08; I² = 59%; very low certainty). The analgesic duration of ESPB was longer than the controls (MD = 6.97; 95% CI: 6.30 to 7.65; I² = 58%; very low certainty).

conclusionESPB did not decrease the postoperative pain scores when compared to other comparators. However, ESPB showed a lower consumption of tramadol and a longer blockade duration, although the quality of evidence of these outcomes were very low.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaNerve BlockTramadolAnalgesicsCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPostoperative PainPregnancyAnalgesicsTramadolAnesthesia, obstetricalCesarean sectionMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34673125
PMCPMC9373474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.