ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024
Comparison of the classical approach and costoclavicular approach of ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Costoclavicular Brachial Plexus Block for Upper Limb Procedures: A Narrative Review of Efficacy and Safety.Cureus · 2026Review
- Assessment of GRADE utilisation in published systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Automated tools in systematic reviews: Current trends.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Infographics of published articles.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Article
- Myriads of updated systematic reviews and meta-analyses - Should trial sequential and power-analysis be mandatory?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Meta-analysis - interpretation of forest plots: A wood for the trees.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Hemidiaphragmatic paralysis following costoclavicular versus supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) provides analgesia and anaesthesia of the upper limb. It is given using the classical or the more recently described costoclavicular (CC) approach at the level of cords. This systematic review aimed to assess which approach is better for the ICB in terms of onset, performance, and safety. Methods: This PROSPERO (vide registration number CRD42022361636) registered meta-analysis included randomised trials of patients undergoing upper limb surgery in ultrasound-guided ICB from MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and IRCTP from inception to March 2023. The quality of evidence was assessed using GradePro software. The primary outcomes were sensory and motor block onset time and the number of patients having complete block at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included block performance time (BPT), number of attempts, duration of the block, and any incidence of complications. Results: Five trials with 374 adult patients (classic = 185, CC = 189) were included. No significant difference was found in the sensory (Mean difference (MD): 1.44 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06, 5.95]; I Conclusion: Costoclavicular approach was not superior or inferior to the classical technique for infraclavicular brachial plexus block. However, the quality of evidence is low and further studies are needed to corroborate the findings.
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.