ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2024
Development and validation of metrics for assessment of ultrasound-guided fascial block skills
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2024. 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.
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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs few anaesthetists provide lumbar erector spinae block for disc surgery, there is a need to provide training to enable a randomised controlled trial investigating analgesia after painful spinal surgery (NIHR153170). The primary objective of the study was to develop and measure the construct validity of a checklist for assessment of skills in performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae fascial plane injection using soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers.
methodsTwenty-four UK consultant regional anaesthetists completed two iterations of a Delphi questionnaire. The final checklist consisted of 11 steps conducive to best practice. Thereafter, we validated the checklist by comparing the performance of 12 experts with 12 novices, each performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae plane injections or fascia iliaca, serrato-pectoral (PEC II) and serratus injections, randomly allocated to the left and right sides of six soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers. Six expert, trained raters blinded to operator and site of block examined 120 videos each.
resultsThe mean (95% confidence interval) internal consistency of the 11-item checklist for erector spinae plane injection was 0.72 (0.63-0.79) and interclass correlation was 0.88 (0.82-0.93). The checklist showed construct validity for lumbar and thoracic erector spinae injection, experts vs novices {median (interquartile range [range]) 8.0 (7.0-10.0 [1-11]) vs 7.0 (5.0-9.0 [4-11]), difference 1.5 (1.0-2.5), P<0.001}. Global rating scales showed construct validity for lumbar and thoracic erector spinae injection, 28.0 (24.0-31.0 [7-35]) vs 21.0 (17.0-24.0 [7-35]), difference 7.5 (6.0-8.5), P<0.001. The most difficult items to perform were identifying the needle tip before advancing and always visualising the needle tip. Instrument handling and flow of procedure were the areas of greatest difficulty on the global rating scale (GRS). Checklists and GRS scores correlated. There was homogeneity of regression slopes controlling for status, type of injection, and rater. Generalisability analysis showed a high reliability using the checklist and GRS for all fascial plane blocks (Rho [ρ
conclusionsAn 11-point checklist developed through a modified Delphi process to provide best practice guidance for fascial plane injection showed construct validity in performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae fascial plane injection in soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers.
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.