SynthesisMedicine2025
Analgesic strategies prior to spinal anesthesia for patients with hip and femoral shaft fractures: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
- Reappraising the fascia iliaca compartment block and pericapsular nerve group block for geriatric hip fractures: a narrative review.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Management and optimisation in the preoperative phase for patients with a fractured hip.EFORT open reviews · 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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of different strategies at various perioperative stages in patients with hip or femoral shaft fractures, and to identify the optimal prespinal anesthesia analgesic approach.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase for randomized controlled trials published up to July 2025. A network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 to assess the effectiveness of 4 analgesic methods - pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), femoral nerve block, and intravenous analgesia - across 6 outcomes: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score during positioning, quality of patient positioning, time to perform spinal anesthesia, VAS score during anesthesia, patient satisfaction, and postoperative morphine consumption.
resultsA total of 23 randomized controlled trials involving 1359 patients were included. The PENG block demonstrated the most favorable performance in most intraoperative-related outcomes, with surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of 96.6% for positioning VAS, 97.6% for positioning quality, 83.9% for anesthesia procedure time, 88.0% for VAS during anesthesia, and 91.7% for patient satisfaction. FICB ranked highest in minimizing postoperative morphine consumption (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 92.5%). Different analgesic strategies showed varied efficacy across outcome measures.
conclusionThe PENG block offers significant advantages in intraoperative analgesia and patient cooperation, while FICB is more effective in sustaining postoperative pain control. These findings provide robust evidence to guide the individualized selection of perioperative analgesic strategies.
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.