Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36270701›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2022

Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Setor K Kunutsor, Pravakar B Hamal, Sara Tomassini, Joyce Yeung, Michael R Whitehouse, Gulraj S Matharu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Leg compression for preventing hypotension after spinal anesthesia in elderly hip fracture patients.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Pertrochanteric fractures].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Bone cement implantation syndrome: a scoping review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Setor K KunutsorNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Pravakar B HamalMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Sara TomassiniWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Joyce YeungWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK; University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Michael R WhitehouseNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Gulraj S MatharuMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: gulraj.matharu@bristol.ac.uk.
Southmead Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives.

methodsRCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes.

conclusionsExcept for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021275206.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAnesthesia, SpinalDeliriumHip FracturesAnesthesia, GeneralConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicHumansPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomecomplicationcore outcome setgeneral anaesthesiahip fracturemeta-analysismortalityspinal anaesthesiasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36270701
PMCPMC9642835
OpenAlexW4297346307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.