SynthesisRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2026
Clinical utility of randomized controlled trials of regional anesthesia for lower-extremity surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegional anesthesia (RA) is central to multimodal analgesia, yet many supporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lack the rigor needed for evidence-based block selection.
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical usefulness and transparency of RCTs investigating RA interventions for lower extremity surgeries, using the van 't Hooft
methodsEmbase/MEDLINE were searched for RCTs (2014-2024) examining RA interventions for lower-extremity surgery. Data were extracted in duplicate using clinical-utility and transparency criteria. Analyses included descriptive statistics, linear regression for temporal trends, Pearson correlation, and multivariable regression to identify predictors of usefulness.
resultsAmong 248 RCTs, patient-centeredness was universal, while feasibility (77.0%) and context placement (77.4%) were common. Pragmatism (2.0%) and value-for-money analyses (0%) were rare. Transparency varied: conflicts of interest were disclosed in 88.7%, pre-registration occurred in 39.9%, public protocols in 10.1%, and raw-data sharing in 1.2%. Transparency improved over time, correlated with clinical-utility scores (r=0.32, p<0.001) and was greater in hospital-funded, self-funded, and higher-impact journals. LIMITATIONS: Usefulness scoring involves subjective judgment; non-English trials were excluded; the absence of formal risk of bias analysis limits interpretability of trial quality. DISCUSSIONS/
conclusionsAlthough transparency is improving, most trials remain insufficiently pragmatic, lack economic evaluation, and rarely share data, limiting real-world applicability. The results of this study suggest that aligning funder, journal, and collaborative expectations around open science and pragmatic design could accelerate the generation of high-utility evidence for perioperative block selection.
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.