ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Celiac plexus block combined with
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. 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, 1 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of celiac plexus block (CPB) combined with
methodsThe data of 81 patients with refractory epigastric pain [visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 4] from abdominal malignancies were collected in this retrospective case-control study. Group A (n = 40) was treated with CPB alone, while Group B (n = 41) underwent CPB combined with ISI. The primary study endpoints were the VAS score, quality of life (QoL), and local tumor control (LTC) rate. The secondary endpoints were complications, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
resultsThe VAS scores at week 2 (T2), week 4 (T4), week 8 (T8), and week 12 (T12) in both groups were significantly lower compared with the pretreatment values (all P < 0.01). VAS scores in Group B showed a sustained decrease, especially for "mild pain" and "moderate pain," while the VAS scores in Group A rebounded at T8 and T12 (both P < 0.01). The QoL in Group B improved significantly from T4 until T12, which better than that at T12 in Group A (all P < 0.01). The LTC rates at T8 were 35.0% and 92.7% in Groups A and B, respectively, with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Group B had a slightly lower complication rate and a slightly longer median PFS/OS than group A, but neither was statistically different (P = 0.09 and P = 0.99, respectively).
conclusionCPB combined with ISI performs more sustained pain relief (up to 12 weeks) compared to CPB alone, and ultimately improves the patients' QoL.
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.