Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957079›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2024

Peripheral regional anaesthesia and outcomes: a narrative review of the literature from 2013 to 2023.

Manouk Admiraal, Peter Marhofer, Philip M Hopkins, Markus W Hollmann

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Latest Advances in Regional Anaesthesia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Manouk AdmiraalDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter MarhoferDepartment of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: peter.marhofer@live.com.
Philip M HopkinsLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Markus W HollmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Medical University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of peripheral regional anaesthesia continues to increase, yet the evidence supporting its use and impact on relevant outcomes often lacks scientific rigour, especially when considering the use of specific blocks for a particular surgical indication. In this narrative review, we consider the relevant literature in a 10-yr period from 2013. We performed a literature search (MEDLINE and EMBASE) for articles reporting randomised controlled trials and other comparative trials of peripheral regional anaesthetic blocks vs systemic analgesia in adult patients undergoing surgery. We evaluated measures of effective treatment and complications. A total of 128 studies met our inclusion criteria. There remains variability in the technical conduct of blocks and the outcomes used to evaluate them. There is a considerable body of evidence to support the use of interscalene blocks for shoulder surgery. Saphenous nerve (motor-sparing) blocks provide satisfactory analgesia after knee surgery and are preferred to femoral nerve blocks which are associated with falls when patients are mobilised early as part of enhanced recovery programmes. There are additional surgical indications where the efficacy of cervical plexus, intercostal nerve, and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks have been demonstrated. In the past 10 yr, there has been a consolidation of the evidence indicating benefit of peripheral nerve blocks for specific indications. There remains great scope for rigorous, multicentre, randomised controlled trials of many peripheral nerve blocks. These would benefit from an agreed set of patient-centred outcomes.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ConductionNerve BlockHumansPeripheral NervesPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomeanaesthesiaconduction blockdata analysisnerve blockperipheral nervesregional anaesthesia

Identifiers

PMID37957079
PMCPMC11103102
OpenAlexW4388586971

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.