ArticleCureus2024
Non-adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Interventions: Insights From a Comprehensive Case Series Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- C8 Health, a Platform for the Implementation of Best Practices: Survey-Based Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Thoracic segmental spinal anaesthesia: expanding applications while keeping it safe.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Neurological Deficits Following Regional Anesthesia and Pain Interventions: Reviewing Current Standards of Care.Pain and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adhering to established guidelines, regional anesthesia (RA) and pain interventions are essential for preventing or minimizing the risk of complications. This study examines neurological complications that may arise when RA or pain interventions are performed without adherence to the clinical practice guidelines. This article aimed to emphasize the relationship between deviations from standards of care in RA and neurological outcomes. Specifically, it focuses on neurological deficits associated with RA and pain interventions. This retrospective study analyzed five cases, selected from 18 cases meeting the inclusion criteria, reviewed over a period from 2012 to 2023. The data collected included patient demographics, anesthesia details, neurological deficits, diagnostic findings, management approaches, and outcomes at three- to six-month follow-ups. The article presents five cases, each examining the techniques used, clinical diagnosis, radiological imaging, neurophysiological studies, and the management protocols involved. Furthermore, it highlights the consequences of deviations from the standard of care and their impacts on neurological outcomes. Outcomes and key lessons learned from each case are discussed. Five cases were analyzed, revealing deviations from the standard of care such as incorrect spinal needle placement, injection despite warning signs, inadequate patient evaluation, and procedures performed by inexperienced anesthetists. While some patients achieved full recovery, others experienced lasting deficits. The study emphasizes the critical importance of strict adherence to clinical practice guidelines in RA and pain interventions to minimize neurological complications. It highlights the essential roles of proper training, precise technique, thorough patient evaluation, patient-centered care, informed consent, and the use of advanced diagnostic tools to mitigate risks and improve patient safety and outcomes.
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.