ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022
Superior hypogastric plexus (SHP) block during minimally invasive hysterectomy: A systematic review.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analgesic Efficacy of Intraoperative Superior Hypogastric Plexus (SHP) Block during Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically summarize the efficacy and safety of superior hypogastric plexus (SHP) block versus no SHP block among patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH). Five information sources were screened from inception until 04.04.2022 and comprised the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria comprised (i) patients: individuals undergoing MIH, (ii) intervention: SHP block, (iii) Comparator: no SHP block, (iv) Outcomes: postoperative pain, postoperative opioid consumption, operation time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications/toxicities, and (v) Study design: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Owing to the insignificant number of available studies, methodologic heterogeneity, and procedural variances, it was impossible to carry out a quantitative meta-analysis. Hence, the results of the included studies were only reported qualitatively (descriptively). Three studies (2 RCTs and 1 cohort study), comprising 210 patients (SHP=107 and non-SHP=103) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. The results showed that SHP block appeared largely safe and could reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. However, SHP block did not offer clinical benefits in terms of reduced operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay compared with non-SHP block. Among patients undergoing MIH, this first ever systematic review showed that SHP block was safe and exhibited potential analgesic and opioid-sparing effects postoperatively. Additional RCTs are needed to carry out a powered meta-analysis and validate the findings.
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.