ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Preservation versus dissection of the intercostobrachial nerve for breast cancer surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-point deep serratus anterior plane block for modified radical mastectomy - A case series assessing axillary coverage using structured sensory mapping.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for intercostobrachial nerve syndrome after breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial protocol.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of preservation of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) versus its dissection for patients who underwent breast surgery. Methods: The authors searched Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception until March 2023. Records were screened for eligible studies, and all relevant outcomes were pooled as an odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan version 5.4. Results: These results from 11 studies (1021 patients) favored preservation of the ICBN over its dissection in terms of anaesthesia and hypaesthesia [OR 0.50, (95% CI, 0.31-0.82); Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed that the preservation of the ICBN has a significant effect on the disturbance of sensory parameters of hypaesthesia and anaesthesia when compared to its dissection. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to precisely compare both techniques on a wider range of parameters.
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.