ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Programmed Intermittent Bolus versus Continuous Infusion for Regional Analgesia Following Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Serratus anterior plane blocks for median sternotomy anesthesia: back to the drawing board.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Continuous regional analgesia techniques have emerged as a more effective alternative for postoperative analgesia, but the clinical efficacy of infusion modes in thoracoscopic surgery remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of programmed intermittent bolus infusion (PIBI) with continuous infusion (CI) for regional analgesia in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant research from inception to March 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PIBI with CI for regional analgesia following thoracoscopic surgery were included. The meta-analysis was made by using ReMan 5.4 software. Results: We included 7 RCTs with 394 patients. For resting VAS at 6 h, there was no significant difference between PIBI and CI (MD = -0.52, 95% CI: -1.23 to 0.20). PIBI was more likely to reduce the resting VAS at 12 h, movement VAS at 12 h, and morphine consumption in first 24 h. PIBI had lower local anesthetic consumption and wider range of sensory blockade than CI. However, there were no significant difference between PIBI and CI in terms of the resting VAS at 24 h, resting VAS at 48 h, movement VAS at 6 h, movement VAS at 24 h, movement VAS at 48 h, morphine consumption in second 24 h, and number of people using additional analgesics. Conclusion: PIBI provided a lower local anesthetic consumption and a wider sensory blockade compared to CI for regional analgesia following thoracoscopic surgery, although no significant clinical differences were observed in postoperative pain scores, opioid consumptions, and number of people using additional analgesics. Limitation: The heterogeneity may influence the pooled estimates, the conclusion was only suitable for pulmonary surgery, the lack of long-term follow-up data on chronic pain outcomes.
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.