ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Effectiveness of Perfusion Index ratio and End-Diastolic Velocity ratio in evaluating the efficacy of Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: a prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There is a lack of reliable indicators for evaluating the success of ultrasound-guided Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block (ISBPB). This study investigates the effectiveness of Perfusion Index (PI) ratio and End-Diastolic Velocity (EDV) ratio for early assessment of ISBPB effects. Methods: Eighty-nine patients, aged 18-65 with BMI 18-24 kg/m Results: Of 89 patients, 3 were excluded due to data loss and 2 withdrew, leaving 84 patients. Of these, 70 (83.3%) had successful blocks. In the successful group, both PI and EDV ratios on the blocked side significantly increased 5 min after the procedure. The PI ratio at 5 min had an AUROC of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.816-0.972), with a threshold of 1.22, sensitivity of 84.3%, and specificity of 85.7%. The EDV ratio had an AUROC of 0.706 (95% CI: 0.553-0.860), with a threshold of 1.32, sensitivity of 92.9%, and specificity of 50%. At 10 min, the PI ratio for assessing ISBPB impact had an AUROC of 0.901 (95% CI: 0.828-0.974), with a threshold of 1.4, sensitivity of 74.3%, and specificity of 92.9%. The AUROC for the EDV ratio was 0.799 (95% CI: 0.6788-0.921) with a threshold of 1.54, sensitivity of 92.9%, and specificity of 57.1%. The PI ratio at 5 min had a significantly higher AUROC than the EDV ratio, but no significant difference was found between PI ratios at 5 and 10 min. Conclusion: Both PI ratio and EDV ratio assess ISBPB efficacy. The PI ratio provides a more precise evaluation, with optimal assessment at 5 min post-procedure. Clinical trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200066874.
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.