SynthesisMedicine2025
Comparison of interscalene block with costoclavicular block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Peripheral regional anesthesia and analgesia: "the magnificent seven" for training].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Peripheral Nerve Blocks After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe impact of interscalene block versus costoclavicular block on the analgesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery is unclear, and this meta-analysis aims to study the analgesic efficacy of interscalene block versus costoclavicular block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
methodsWe have searched several databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library databases, and randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of interscalene block versus costoclavicular block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery were involved. This meta-analysis was conducted by the fixed-effect model or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.
resultsFour randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. For patient undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery, interscalene block and costoclavicular block demonstrated comparable pain scores at 30 minute (mean difference [MD] = 0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.20 to 0.21; P = .96), pain scores at 1 hour (MD = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.22 to 0.19; P = .87), pain scores at 3 hour (MD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.27 to 0.19; P = .73), pain scores at 6 hour (MD = -0.57; 95% CI = -1.77 to 0.63; P = .35), pain scores at 12 hour (MD = 0; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.07; P = .93), pain scores at 24 hour (MD = 0; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.07; P = .96), time to first rescue analgesia (MD = 76.67; 95% CI = -19.23 to 172.56; P = .12), nausea and vomiting (MD = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.32; P = .27).
conclusionInterscalene block and costoclavicular block are comparable to control the analgesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
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.