ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparing the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine for postoperative pain management in breast surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Deviations from recommended use of liposomal bupivacaine: a real-world pharmacovigilance study using the FAERS database.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective management of postoperative pain is essential for enhancing recovery and improving patient satisfaction after breast surgery. Traditionally, bupivacaine, a long-acting local anaesthetic, has been widely employed for this purpose. More recently, liposomal bupivacaine, a novel prolonged-release formulation, has been introduced as a potential alternative. Although several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated these agents, their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This protocol describes the methodology for a systematic review and meta-analysis designed to assess the analgesic effectiveness of conventional bupivacaine versus liposomal bupivacaine in the setting of breast surgery. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase via Ovid, Medline via Ovid and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs up to the present date. The search strategy will combine relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms related to bupivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine, breast surgery and pain management. Eligible studies will include RCTs enrolling adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing breast surgery. The interventions of interest are liposomal versus standard bupivacaine, typically administered perioperatively-most commonly intraoperatively via local infiltration or regional block-within the context of surgery under general anaesthesia. The primary outcome is the intensity of postoperative pain within 72 hours. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data will be synthesised using either a random-effects or fixed-effects model, with effect sizes reported as mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias will also be performed to ensure the robustness of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as only published data will be analysed. The meta-analysis findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023451411.
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.