SynthesisMedicine2026
Comparison of costoclavicular with infraclavicular block for upper limb surgeries: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe influence of costoclavicular versus infraclavicular nerve block on the analgesia for upper limb surgeries remains elusive. This meta-analysis and systematic review aim to study the analgesic efficacy of costoclavicular versus infraclavicular nerve block for upper limb surgeries.
methodsWe have searched several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 2024, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of costoclavicular versus infraclavicular nerve block for upper limb surgeries were included. The inclusion criteria were presented as follows: study design was RCT, patients underwent upper limb surgeries, and intervention treatments were costoclavicular nerve block versus infraclavicular nerve block. Studies without English abstracts were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the modified Jadad scale. Standard mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess continuous outcomes, while odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was applied to evaluate dichotomous outcomes.
resultsSix RCTs and 434 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with infraclavicular nerve block for upper limb surgeries, costoclavicular nerve block was able to significantly decrease block onset time (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.05; P = .02), but demonstrated no influence on performance time (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.85 to 0.34; P = .40), number of passes (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.40 to 0.24; P = .61), vascular puncture (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.04 to 1.56; P = .14) or Horner syndrome (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.04 to 27.64; P = .99).
conclusionCostoclavicular nerve block may need shorter block onset time for upper limb surgeries compared to infraclavicular nerve block, but more RCTs were needed to confirm these findings.
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.