Fascia iliaca block for pain relief from proximal femoral fracture in the emergency department: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to determine the efficacy of the fascia iliaca block in providing analgesia to patients with a proximal femoral fracture in the emergency department. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched. Free text keywords for population, intervention and outcome were identified to create a search string. The reference lists from articles identified in the primary electronic search were hand searched. Potentially eligible studies were identified based on review of the title and abstract. If eligibility was unclear from the title and abstract, the full text was examined. Randomised controlled trials comparing the fascia iliaca block with standard analgesia were included. A standardised appraisal of the methodological quality of the studies was performed. RESULTS: 39 articles were identified, of which 13 were duplicates. Of the remaining 26, 15 were relevant to the question and suitable for further sorting. There was one conference poster presenting data, which were later published as an audit, and so was considered to be a duplicate. Of the 14 remaining papers, 2 were randomised controlled trials, 6 were cohort studies and 3 were reports of audit of practice. There were 3 abstracts of conference poster or paper submissions, which were descriptions of reviews or service development projects rather than primary studies. The two randomised controlled trials showed statistically significant superior or equal pain relief between the fascia iliaca block and other forms of acute pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: the fascia iliaca block could have an important role in first-line pain control for patients presenting to the emergency department with a proximal femoral fracture. There is potential to reform the acute management of this common group of patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".