ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of traditional systemic analgesic, single shot or continuous fascia iliaca compartment block for pain management in patients with hip or proximal femoral fractures: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPain management for hip and proximal femoral fractures includes oral and parenteral opioids and various regional anesthesia techniques. Fascia iliaca compartment blocks (FICB) are commonly used for these patients. At present, a unified view of the analgesic effect of FICB has not been reached. In addition, the comparison between single shot FICB and continuous FICB has not elicited clear evidence-based results. We will compare the efficacy and safety of systemic analgesics, single shot or continuous FICB in the pain management, complication prevention and satisfaction, in our systematic review and network meta-analysis.
methodsChina National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literatures database, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, EMBASE, and Web of Science will be searched until June 2023. Two authors will independently screen the studies for eligibility and perform data extraction. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) will be used to assess the quality of evidence. We will use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence across studies included in this review. All the statistical analyses will be conducted using Rev Man 5.3, WinBUGS 1.4.3, and Stata 13. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our review involves a secondary analysis of existing published studies, therefore there is no need for formal research ethics approval. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023425282.
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.