SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficacy of paravertebral block on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) often occur after anesthesia and may cause dissatisfaction among patients. Occasionally, PONV may result in complications after surgery. Steering clear of PONV stands as a crucial and pertinent objective in anesthesia. The use of paravertebral block (PVB) offers potent pain relief in surgical interventions. Nonetheless, the evidence is inadequate to prove its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting. This meta-analysis aimed to calculate the impact of PVB on PONV.
methodsA pair of autonomous investigators carried out investigations for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.We used Review Manager software for the meta-analysis.
resultsTwenty-three trials with 2955 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that PVB reduced postoperative nausea (risk difference (RD) = -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.24 to -0.13) compared with no PVB. Compared to no PVB approaches, PVB significantly reduced opioid consumption, as evidenced by standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% CI: -1.63 to -0.11) for fentanyl, -1.48 (95% CI: -1.90 to -1.06) for sufentanil, and − 1.47 (95% CI: -2.27 to -0.68) for morphine. PVB could reduce the VAS rest at 0–2 h (SMD = -2.78, 95% CI: -4.20 to -1.36), at 4–6 h (SMD = -1.31, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.72) and 24 h (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI: -1.16 to -0.52), shortened hospitalization (SMD = -0.74, 95% CI: -1.32 to -0.17), prolonged time to rescue analgesia (SMD = 5.79, 95% CI: 2.42 to 9.16) and reduced the incidence of pruritus (SMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.02). GRADE showed this meta-analysis to have moderate or low or very low confidence. Trial sequential analysis for mortality indicated sufficient sample size for a definitive judgment for lower incidence of nausea and vomiting .
conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that PVB could lower PONV occurrences.and its effectiveness might be affected by variables like the amount of local anesthetic used, and its concentration.
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.