ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy of Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Guidance for Neuraxial Anesthesia in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence for ultrasound scanning in regional anesthesia is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of computer-aided three-dimensional ultrasound (C-aided US) guidance for neuraxial anesthesia in adult patients. We searched all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients who required neuraxial anesthesia in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases on June 19, 2023. The primary outcomes were first-pass success, procedure time, and incidence of procedure-related adverse events. We used the Risk of Bias 2 to evaluate the risk of bias for each outcome, a random-effects model to conduct a meta-analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Seven RCTs (594 patients) were included. The C-aided US guidance results were as follows: first-pass success (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.89 to 2.16; low certainty) and total procedure time (mean difference = 0.85 minutes, 95% CI = -0.81 to 2.5; low certainty). Four RCTs reported procedure-related adverse events (e.g., paresthesia, back pain, hemorrhagic events) in both groups (low certainty). The updated meta-analysis showed that there might be no differences in the first-pass success rates and total procedure times between C-aided US guidance and anatomical landmark guidance for neuraxial punctures.
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.