Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Aug 29;17(1):112.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0406-3.

Assessing advances in regional anesthesia by their portrayals in meta-analyses: an alternative view on recent progress

Kamen V Vlassakov  1 , Igor Kissin  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Assessing advances in regional anesthesia by their portrayals in meta-analyses: an alternative view on recent progress

Kamen V Vlassakov et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to delineate research reflecting advances in regional/local anesthesia where recent clinical progress was clearly defined by meta-analysis.

Methods: We conducted a search to identify all articles with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials related to the field of regional/local anesthesia. From 279 titles, after multiple exclusions, 16 meta-analyses on important clinical practice developments with high potential for a positive conclusion on the effectiveness of the treatment were left for the assessment. The assessment was performed in two steps. The first step was related to verification of proof-of-concept: the effect is statistically reliable (p-value, effect size, heterogeneity across different RCTs) and the risk of bias not too high. The second step was devoted to attempts to form an opinion on the real clinical benefits of a new development.

Results: The assessment revealed that seven recent developments passed the proof-of-concept step. At the same time, positive conclusion on real clinical benefits was reached only by one of these seven developments: ultrasound guidance for peripheral nerve blocks (at least with some of the blocks). Meaningful clinical improvements with other developments remains uncertain. The assessment of the relationships between analyzed advancements over the past 30 years and earlier similar developments indicated that their evolution was usually incremental. The most original advancement was found to be the introduction of the transversus abdominis plane block.

Conclusion: The assessment of recent advances in regional/local anesthesia, based on the evaluation of related meta-analyses, revealed only incremental progress with mostly marginal benefits. The progress was the most notable with ultrasound guidance for some of peripheral nerve blocks.

Keywords: Epidural anesthesia; Minimal clinically important difference; Nerve blocks; Real-world evidence; Spinal anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials.

Presented within the manuscript.

Competing interests

There are no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of screened, excluded and included articles with meta-analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Vlassakov KV, Kissin I. Scientometrics of anesthetic drugs and their techniques of administration, 1984-2013. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:2463–2473. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Humaiden P, Polyos N. (meta) analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility. Nat Med. 2012;18:1321. doi: 10.1038/nm0912-1321. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Imberger G, Gluud C, Boylan J, Wetterslev J. Systematic reviews of anesthesiologic interventions reported as statistically significant: problems with power, precision and type 1 error protection. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:1611–1622. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000892. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sterne JA, Davey SG. Sifting the evidence – what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001;322:226–231. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, Molnar AO, Dattani ND, Burke A, Guyatt G, Thabane L, Walter SD, Pogue J, Devereaux PJ. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a fragility index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:622–688. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources