ReviewActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Adverse Effects Associated With Spinal Versus General Anaesthesia for Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Review in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 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
backgroundSpinal and general anaesthesia are the most common anaesthetic methods for hip and knee arthroplasties. Differences in their effects on short- and long-term postoperative outcomes, including mortality morbidity, and adverse events, remain uncertain. Identifying the anesthetic method that provides the best recovery could help optimise patient care. Previous reviews have reported conflicting results and have methodological limitations, highlighting the need for an updated systematic review.
methodsThis protocol describes a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials, incorporating Trial sequential analysis. The review aims to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of spinal versus general anaesthesia in adult patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. To identify relevant trials, we will search major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries and include all trials directly comparing spinal versus general anaesthesia. Two review authors will independently screen the literature, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (RoB-2)). The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be pain, postoperative opioid consumption, time to first mobilisation, hospital length of stay, non-serious adverse events, and quality of recovery. The certainty of evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and presented in a 'Summary of Findings' table. DISCUSSION: To guide clinicians in choosing between spinal and general anaesthesia for hip and knee arthroplasties, a systematic review of the existing evidence is needed. This review will support clinicians and patients in weighing the benefits against the harms of the two anaesthetic methods and in making evidence-based, informed decisions.
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.