SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block for managing pain in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) truly relieves pain after arthroscopic shoulder surgery (ASS) is still unsettled. We therefore examined whether ESPB sharpens post-operative pain control in these patients. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESPB with any comparator (no block, sham block, or alternative regional block) in patients undergoing ASS. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption within the first 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time to first rescue analgesic request, and patient-reported satisfaction with analgesia. Results: Six RCTs comprised of 365 patients met inclusion criteria. ESPB did not reduce 24-h opioid consumption versus control (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -2.55 to 0.33; Conclusion: The ESPB fails to reduce 24-h opioid consumption, pain scores at rest and movement at early stage, and the incidence of PONV. Nevertheless, it prolonged the time to first rescue analgesic without elevating the risk of adverse events. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, registration number CRD 42023395027, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023395027.
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.