Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
The Optimal Effective Concentration of Spinal Anesthesia for Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: An Approach Based on the Biased Coin Design.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 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.
- Ropivacaine Spinal Anesthesia for IELD: Dose-Finding Pitfalls and Scoring Inconsistency [Letter].Drug design, development and therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the optimal spinal anesthesia concentration for interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), in order to deliver precise and individualized anesthesia for this procedure. Methods: Fifty-four patients scheduled for IELD were randomized via a biased coin design to receive spinal anesthesia with different ropivacaine doses. The initial dose was 7.5 mg/3 mL. If the patient reported a negative outcome, the subsequent dose was increased by 0.75 mg. If a positive outcome was reported, subsequent dose remained unchanged (89% probability) or was decreased by 0.75 mg (11% probability). At least 45 positive outcomes were needed to estimate the MEC Results: The isotonic regression estimated the MEC Conclusion: The MEC
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.