SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion combined with patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgrammed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) and Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) are widely used strategies for maintaining postoperative analgesia, typically combined with Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA). Although PIEB is theorized to enhance epidural drug distribution and analgesic effectiveness through intermittent high-pressure boluses, evidence supporting its superiority over CEI in the postoperative setting remains inconsistent.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing PIEB and CEI, both with PCEA, in adult postoperative patients (PROSPERO CRD420251046001). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched until May 1, 2025. PRIMARY OUTCOME: pain at 24 hours. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: pain at other intervals, anesthetic consumption, and adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model; Risk of Bias (RoB-2) and small-study effects were assessed.
resultsTen RCTs comprising 692 patients were included. No significant difference was found in 24-hour pain scores at rest (MD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.99 to 0.10) or movement (MD = -0.88; 95% CI -2.07 to 0.32). PIEB showed mildly lower pain at other time points and reduced total epidural volume (MD = -7.31 mL; 95% CI -13.7 to -0.92 mL). However, PIEB was associated with higher hypotension risk (RR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.78). No differences were found in opioid consumption, PCEA demands, or other adverse events.
conclusionPIEB offers no significant analgesic advantage and increases hypotension risk compared to CEI in postoperative settings, when both are combined with PCEA. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity. PROSPERO REGISTRY: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251046001.
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.