MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897230964 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003860

Dexamethasone Is Superior to Dexmedetomidine as a Perineural Adjunct for Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: Systematic Review and Indirect Meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2897230964 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Albrecht, Leon Vorobeichik, Alain Jacot-Guillarmod, Nicolas Fournier, Faraj W. Abdallah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidineAnesthesiaMeta-analysisSedationDexamethasoneRelative riskConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialBrachial plexusNerve blockSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are effective peripheral nerve block (PNB) perineural adjuncts that prolong block duration. However, each is associated with side effects. With paucity of head-to-head comparisons of these adjuncts, the question of the best adjunct to mix with local anesthetics (LA) for PNB is unanswered. This meta-analysis aims to inform current practice and future research by identifying the superior adjunct by comparing dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, trials comparing the combination of perineural dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine with LA to LA alone for PNB were sought. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of trials, and indirect or network meta-analyses using random-effects modeling were planned. We designated duration of analgesia as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included sensory and motor block durations, sensory and motor block onset times, and the risks of hypotension, sedation, and neurological symptoms. RESULTS: Fifty trials were identified, including only 1 direct comparison, precluding a network meta-analysis. Indirect meta-analysis of 49 trials (3019 patients) was performed. Compared to dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone prolonged the duration of analgesia by a mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 148 minutes (37-259 minutes) (P = .003), without prolonging sensory/motor blockade. Dexmedetomidine increased rates of hypotension (risk ratio [95% CI], 6.3 [1.5-27.5]; P = .01) and sedation (risk ratio [95% CI], 15.8 [3.9-64.6]; P = .0001). Overall risk of bias was moderate, and publication bias was noted, resulting in downgrading evidence strength. CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that both adjuncts similarly prolong sensory/motor blockade. However, dexamethasone may be a superior adjunct; it improves the duration of analgesia by a statistically significant increase, albeit clinically modest, equivalent to 2.5 hours more than dexmedetomidine, without the risks of hypotension or sedation. Future direct comparisons are encouraged.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.282 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations87
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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