ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Regional Anesthesia in Children: How Do We Know It Works? A Review of a Novel Tool for Assessing the Impact of Regional Anesthesia for Pediatric Surgical Patients.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe wished to demonstrate the utility of a novel quantitative assessment tool for the efficacy of regional anesthesia in children.
methodsThe authors examined the records of all patients evaluated by the acute pain service during a 6-month period at a large quaternary-care pediatric hospital. The morphine equivalency rate (MER) in mcg/kg/hour was employed to compare the opioid use in children undergoing similar procedures with and without regional anesthesia (RA).
resultsA total of 744 patients were included in this study, 333 of whom received RA. The RA group demonstrated a statistical and clinical benefit from having regional anesthesia, as demonstrated by the MER, compared to the non-RA group. DISCUSSION: Objective measurements of RA in adults are overshadowed by subjective evidence of surgical tolerance in awake or lightly sedated patients. However, in pediatrics, objective measures are still needed to highlight the importance and utility of RA. Such objective tools could impact the adoption of RA by our surgical colleagues and have a long-term impact on opioid use and even abuse. We implemented the MER to quantify the benefit of RA. Given the adverse effects of opioids on gut motility, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, hypersensitivity reactions, and ubiquitous potential for abuse, the MER objectively demonstrates RA's impact on pediatric surgical patients and why its utilization as an assessment tool could ultimately change practice.
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.