Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
The MEC
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to determine the 90% minimum effective concentration (MEC Methods: Patients were enrolled sequentially according to the BCD-UDM protocol. All patients received 30 mL of ropivacaine for ultrasound-guided PECS II block. The initial ropivacaine concentration was 0.2%, and the concentration administered to each subsequent patient was determined by the PECS II block response of the preceding patient. After a negative response, the concentration was increased by 0.02%. After a positive response, the next concentration was determined by biased-coin randomization: with an 11% probability of decreasing by 0.02% and an 89% probability of remaining unchanged. A positive response was defined as a sensory block score of grade 1 or higher within the T2-T6 dermatomal distribution, together with an increase in MAP of less than 20% from baseline within 5 min after skin incision; otherwise, the response was considered negative. The MEC Results: Fifty-five patients were included in the MEC Conclusion: The MEC Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Number: ChiCTR2300076311).
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.