ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Establishment of Difficult Caudal Epidural Blockade Prediction Model.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: Establishment of Difficult Caudal Epidural Blockade Prediction Model.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/84B294439813402F785CF12B69027B
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to develop a predictive difficult caudal epidural blockade (pDCEB) model when ultrasound was not available and verified the role of ultrasound in difficult caudal epidural blockade (CEB). Methods: From October 2018 to March 2019, this study consisted of three phases. First, we prospectively enrolled 202 patients scheduled to undergo caudal epidural anesthesia and assessed risk factors by binary logistic regression to develop the predictive scoring system. Second, we enrolled 87 patients to validate it. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model. Youden-index was used to determine the cut-off value. Third, we enrolled 68 patients with a high risk of difficult CEB (pDCEB score ≥3) and randomized them into ultrasound and landmark groups to verify the role of ultrasound. Result: The rate of difficult CEB was 14.98% overall 289 patients. We found a correlation between unclear palpation of the sacral hiatus (OR 9.688) and cornua (OR 4.725), the number of the sacral hiatus by palpation ≥1 (OR 4.451), and history of difficult CEB (OR 39.282) with a higher possibility of difficult CEB. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the pDCEB model involving the aforementioned factors was 0.889 (95% CI, 0.827-0.952) in the development cohort and 0.862 (95% CI, 0.747-0.977) in the validation cohort. For patients with a pDCEB score ≥3, a preprocedure ultrasound scan could reduce the incidence of difficult CEB (55.56% in the Landmark group vs. 9.38% in the ultrasound group, Conclusion: This novel pDCEB score, which takes into account palpation of the sacral hiatus/cornua, number of the sacral hiatus by palpation ≥1, and history of difficult CEB, showed a good predictive ability of difficult CEB. The findings suggested that performing an ultrasound scan is essential for patients with a pDCEB score ≥3. Trial registration: No: ChiCTR1800018871, Site URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=31875&htm=4; Principal investigator: Jialian Zhao, Date of registration: 2018.10.14.
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.