SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparison of the analgesic effects of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and quadratus lumborum block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07346417 (Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Quadratus Lumborum Block for Post Operative Analgesia in Pediatric Kidney Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Quadratus Lumborum Block for Post Operative Analgesia in Pediatric Kidney Surgery
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fascial plane blocks in labor: promise or illusion? A narrative review with expert opinion.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) are commonly used for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. An increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the analgesic effect and safety of ESPB with those of QLB, but the conclusions are controversial. This study was designed to identify whether ultrasound-guided ESPB was better than the QLB for postoperative analgesia. Methods: To identify RCTs comparing ESPB with QLB for postoperative analgesia, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The primary outcome was postoperative analgesic consumption over 24 h. The secondary outcomes included the time to the first analgesic request, postoperative resting pain scores, block performance time, postoperative rescue analgesia rate, incidence of complications, and postoperative satisfaction. RevMan 5.4 software was used in the analysis. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the source of heterogeneity and test the reliability of the pooled results. The quality of evidence was systematically assessed via the GRADE evaluation. Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 1942 patients were included. Compared with QLB, ESPB consumed fewer 24-h postoperative analgesics (WMD, -4.03; 95% CI, -6.25 to -1.82; Conclusion: Moderate-to high-quality evidence indicates that ESPB is superior to QLB for postoperative analgesia because of less postoperative analgesic consumption, faster block performance and a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024607988.
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.