Evidence for the Use of Ultrasound Imaging in Pediatric Regional Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An earlier review to evaluate the quality and outcomes of studies assessing ultrasound imaging in regional anesthesia for the pediatric population considered articles published from 1994 to 2009 and showed some evidence in support of block-related outcomes (block onset, success, duration) and process-related outcomes (performance time, local anesthetic dose, and spread). At that time, strong evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials and well-designed prospective observational studies was limited, leading to a call for additional research. The current systematic review (2009-2014) compares and updates the evidence for ultrasound-guided pediatric regional anesthesia published since our last review. Using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, we included in this review studies examining ultrasound imaging for nerve localization in the pediatric population between 2009 and March 2014 (meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, controlled studies without randomization, observational studies, comparative studies, and case series involving at least 10 patients). In the current review, we identified 24 and 13 articles evaluating peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial anesthesia, respectively. WHAT'S NEW: Studies in the current review provide stronger evidence and have addressed a number of outcomes that were previously inconsistent or lacked strength in evidence. In the current systematic review, we identified more studies in a shorter period compared with the previous review, and these studies contain higher levels of evidence compared with what we previously found. Randomized controlled trials and well-designed prospective observational studies have replaced case series. Stronger evidence from the literature suggests that ultrasound-guided peripheral blocks decrease block performance time when compared with nerve stimulation (but take longer than the landmark technique), increase block success, and increase block quality (as measured by analgesic consumption, block duration, and pain scores). Ultrasound guidance in neuraxial blocks improves needling time, predicts epidural depth, allows visualization of the catheter and local anesthetic spread, and improves block quality. Furthermore, we identified 2 large-scale prospective studies describing the incidence of adverse events and complications in pediatric regional anesthesia. The increase in evidence presented in this review reflects the efficacy and prevalent use of ultrasound imaging in pediatric regional anesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".