MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616453556 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002014

Perineural Dexmedetomidine Is More Effective Than Clonidine When Added to Local Anesthetic for Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2616453556 on OpenAlexaff
Kariem El‐Boghdadly, Richard Brull, Herman Sehmbi, Faraj W. Abdallah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidineClonidineAnesthesiaAnalgesicLocal anestheticBrachial plexusNerve blockConfidence intervalBrachial plexus blockSurgerySedationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clonidine, an α-2 agonist, has long been used as a local anesthetic adjunct with proven efficacy to prolong peripheral nerve block duration. Dexmedetomidine, a newer α-2 agonist, has a more favorable pharmacodynamic and safety profile; however, data comparing its efficacy as an adjunct to that of clonidine are inconsistent. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of these 2 α-2 agonists by examining their effects on peripheral nerve block characteristics for upper extremity surgery. METHODS: A preliminary search found that the overwhelming majority of randomized controlled trials comparing perineural dexmedetomidine to clonidine for upper extremity surgery were in the setting of supraclavicular brachial plexus block (SCB). Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine as perineural adjuncts to single-injection SCB. Sensory and motor block duration and onset, analgesic duration, α-2 agonist side effects, and block complications were analyzed. Sensory block duration was designated as a primary outcome. Data were combined using random-effects modeling, and ratio-of-means was used to analyze the results. RESULTS: A total of 868 patients from 14 clinical studies were included in the analysis. Compared with clonidine, dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration (ratio of means [95% confidence interval {CI}]) of sensory block by an estimate of 1.2 (1.2-1.3; P< .00001). It also prolonged the duration (ratio of means [99% CI]) of motor block by an estimate of 1.2 (1.1-1.3; P < .00001), and analgesia by an estimate of 1.2 (1.1-1.3; P < .00001). It also hastened the onset of sensory block by an estimate of 0.9 (0.8-1.0; P < .00001) and motor block by an estimate of 0.9 (0.9-1.0; P = .002). Dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased odds ratio (99% CI) of transient bradycardia by an estimate of 7.4 (1.3-40.8; P = .003) and postoperative sedation by an estimate of 11.8 (1.9-73.6; P = .0005). There were no differences in other α-2 agonist-related side effects or block-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clonidine as a local anesthetic adjunct for single-injection SCB, perineural dexmedetomidine enhances sensory, motor, and analgesic block characteristics. These benefits should be weighed against the increased risk of transient bradycardia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207