Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40161966›Full record

ArticleBJA open2025

The ED

Anurag Vats, Pawan K Gupta, Andrew Berrill, Sarah Zohar, Philip M Hopkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anurag VatsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Pawan K GuptaDepartment of Anaesthesia, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Andrew BerrillDepartment of Anaesthesia, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sarah ZoharInserm, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, France.
Philip M HopkinsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Our trial addresses the gaps in the current literature by directly estimating the ED Methods: Four double-blind prospective studies were organized in two separate arms. Patients were randomised between studies A (lidocaine 1% with adrenaline) and B (lidocaine 2% with adrenaline) for axillary blocks and between studies C (prilocaine 1%) and D (lidocaine 1% with adrenaline) for supraclavicular blocks. All statistical modelling and analysis were performed using the modified continual reassessment method. The primary endpoint of the studies was the loss of cold and pin-prick sensations in the sensory distributions of the median, musculocutaneous, radial, and ulnar nerves. Results: For axillary blocks, the estimated ED Conclusions: We achieved a 95% success rate for axillary blocks using lidocaine (1% and 2%) with adrenaline within our dosing limits. For supraclavicular blocks, >40 ml of prilocaine 1% or lidocaine 1% with adrenaline may be required to consistently achieve a 95% success rate. Our studies highlight the continual reassessment method as a credible methodology for dose-finding studies in regional anaesthesia. Clinical trial registration: EudraCT ref: 2010-018466-22.

Indexed as

anaestheticsanalysisBayesianbrachial plexus blockdose-response relationshipdrugslidocainelocalprilocainesurgical anaesthesiaultrasound guidance

Identifiers

PMID40161966
PMCPMC11952003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.