A systematic review and meta‐analysis of perineural dexamethasone for peripheral nerve blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We systematically reviewed the safety and efficacy of perineural dexamethasone as an adjunct for peripheral nerve blockade in 29 controlled trials of 1695 participants. We grouped trials by the duration of local anaesthetic action (short- or medium- vs long-term). Dexamethasone increased the mean (95% CI) duration of analgesia by 233 (172-295) min when injected with short- or medium-term action local anaesthetics and by 488 (419-557) min when injected with long-term action local anaesthetics, p < 0.00001 for both. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the extreme heterogeneity of results, with I2 exceeding 90% for both analyses. Meta-regression did not show an interaction between dose of perineural dexamethasone (4-10 mg) and duration of analgesia (r2 = 0.02, p = 0.54). There were no differences between 4 and 8 mg dexamethasone on subgroup analysis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".