ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Testing of Pre-Operative Peripheral Nerve Blocks in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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.
- Ultrasound predictors of peripheral nerve block failure after blast injury: a prospective cohort study.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral nerve blocks are widely used for anaesthesia in upper and lower limb surgery, but the methods used to assess their success vary substantially. This scoping review examined contemporary research practises and the extent to which trials report on peripheral nerve block evaluation.
methodsA search was conducted on PubMed for randomised controlled trials published between 2014 and 2025 in anaesthesia journals, involving pre-operative peripheral nerve blocks in adults undergoing limb surgery. Two independent authors screened and extracted data for each trial. Outcomes included the proportion of trials that reported block testing, described test methods, defined successful blocks, and reported success rates.
resultsOf 284 trials included, 215 (76%, 95% CI 71%-81%) reported testing blocks, and 210 (74%, 95% CI 69%-79%) described the test methods. Of the 215 trials reporting testing, 204 used sensory assessments (95%, 95% CI 91%-97%) and 157 used motor assessments (73%, 95% CI 67%-79%). Success criteria were defined in 164/284 trials (58%, 95% CI 52%-63%), and the same number reported success rates. In the 164 trials reporting on peripheral nerve block success, the median success rate was 98% (IQR 92%-100%).
conclusionThis scoping review investigated contemporary practise in test methodology reporting in RCTs involving PNBs. We found that although most trials do report testing PNBs, about one in four did not. Furthermore, approximately two in five trials did not define what constituted a successful block or report PNB success rates. Lack of consistent and transparent test methodology poses challenges when comparing trials and performing meta-analyses, and in translating trial findings into clinical practise. This scoping review exposes a methodological blind spot in regional anaesthesia research. Despite widespread use of peripheral nerve blocks, a substantial proportion of randomised trials fail to report testing methods, success definitions, or handling of failed blocks. Such omissions undermine interpretability, comparability, and clinical translation, and strengthen the case for standardised reporting of regional anaesthesia assessment in future trials.
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.