Trial reportTrials2024
Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block versus Bier block for emergency reduction of upper limb injuries: statistical analysis plan.
Trial report in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound-guided supraclavicular block (UGSCB) is an emerging technique gaining interest amongst emergency physicians that provides regional anaesthesia to the upper limb to tolerate painful procedures. It offers an alternative to the more traditional technique of a Bier block (BB). However, the effectiveness or safety of UGSCB when performed in the emergency department (ED) is unclear.
methodsSUPERB (SUPraclavicular block for Emergency Reduction versus Bier block) is a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of UGSCB versus BB for closed reduction of upper limb fractures and/or dislocations. Adult patients presenting with upper limb fracture and/or dislocation requiring closed reduction in ED were randomised to either UGSCB or BB. Once regional anaesthesia is obtained, closed reduction of the injured part was performed and immobilised. The primary outcome is maximal pain experienced during closed reduction measured via a visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include post-reduction pain, patient satisfaction, total opioid requirement in ED, ED length of stay, adverse events and regional anaesthesia failure.
resultsPrimary outcome analysis will be performed using both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The between-group difference in maximum pain intensity will be assessed using linear regression modelling with trial group allocation (UGSCB vs BB) included as a main affect. A pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20 mm on the VAS scale will be used to establish non-inferiority of UGSCB compared to BB.
conclusionSUPERB is the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness and safety of UGSCB in the ED. The trial has the potential to demonstrate that UGSCB is an alternative safe and effective option for the management of upper extremity emergencies in the ED.
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.