Trial reportScientific reports2026
Real-time ultrasound-guided versus landmark techniques for thoracic epidural placement in elderly patients: A randomized comparative study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thoracic epidural placement (TEP) in elderly patients is technically challenging, and evidence comparing real-time ultrasound guidance (USG) with the conventional landmark (LM) technique remains limited. This study aimed to compare the technical performance and success rates between two approaches. Seventy-six elderly patients who were receiving thoracic epidural analgesia were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the USG (n = 38) or LM (n = 38) group. The primary outcome was first-pass success (FPS). The secondary outcomes included the number of needle passes and skin punctures, TEP time, preparation time, and total procedure time. The median age was 70 years in the LM group and 71 years in the USG group. Overall, TEP success was greater with US than with LM [94.7% vs. 81.6%], although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.15). Compared with the LM group, the USG group presented significantly greater FPS [55.3% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.02], fewer needle passes and skin punctures, and a trend toward shorter TEP times. The preparation time was longer in the USG group, but the total procedure time was similar between the groups. Real-time ultrasound guidance significantly improves procedural efficiency in thoracic epidural placement in elderly patients, particularly in term of first-pass success and needle-related performance. However, no statistically significant different in overall procedural success was observed compared with landmark-based technique.Register: Thai Clinical Trials Registry No: TCTR20220913004 Register date: 13/09/2022.
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.