Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37918920›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Comparison of ultrasound-guided and traditional localisation in intraspinal anesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yinzhou Zhang, Mingling Peng, Junying Wei, Jieling Huang, WuHua Ma, Yuhui Li

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07549776 (Ultrasound-guided Versus Landmark-based Spinal Anesthesia in Obese Parturients Undergoing Cesarean Section), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT07549776 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Ultrasound-guided Versus Landmark-based Spinal Anesthesia in Obese Parturients Undergoing Cesarean Section: a Prospective Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Nacional Materno Perinatal, PeruRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsObesity, Cesarean SectionArmsUltrasound-guided preprocedural marking, Landmark-based palpation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yinzhou ZhangFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8149-5700
Mingling PengFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Junying WeiFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jieling HuangFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
WuHua MaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuhui LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China liliuyuhui@126.com.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe optimal puncture technique for neuraxial anaesthesia in different populations is unclear. We sought to obtain data from randomised controlled trials comparing the impact of ultrasound-guided technology and traditional positioning technology on the success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia.

designSystematic review and network meta-analysis using study populations, interventions, intervention comparisons, outcome measures and study types. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were searched until 31 September 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing three types of neuraxial anaesthesia: ultrasound-assisted, ultrasound real-time guidance and conventional positioning to describe which neuraxial anaesthesia modality is best for patients and to recommend the appropriate one for different populations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Five independent reviewers retrieved, screened and edited included studies using standardised methods. Assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA V.15 statistical software.

resultsTwenty-two studies containing three different interventions were included. The SUCRA values of first-pass success rates for the three neuraxial anaesthesia methods were real-time guidance (82.8%), ultrasound-assisted (67.1%) and traditional positioning (0.1%). Both ultrasound techniques improved first-pass success rates compared with traditional localization, but there was no significant difference between the two. Subgroup analysis showed that the use of real-time ultrasound guidance for neuraxial anaesthesia in pregnant and patients with obesity improved first-pass success rates. Ultrasound-assisted technology can improve first-attempt success rates in older patients with abnormal lumbar spine anatomy.

conclusionCompared with conventional positioning, ultrasound guidance technology can improve the first-pass success rate of neuraxial anaesthesia, but there is no significant difference between ultrasound-assisted and real-time guidance technology. The results of subgroup analysis tell us that the most suitable neuraxial anaesthesia method is different for different groups of people. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO number: CRD42022376041.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, EpiduralSpinal PunctureAgedHumansLumbar VertebraeUltrasonography, InterventionalAdult anaesthesiaAdult surgeryUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID37918920
PMCPMC10626869
OpenAlexW4388275368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.