MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193528088 · doi:10.1136/rapm-2021-102750

Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature

2021· review· en· W3193528088 on OpenAlexaff
Stavros G. Memtsoudis, Crispiana Cozowicz, Janis Bekeris, Dace Bekere, Jiabin Liu, Ellen M. Soffin, Edward R. Mariano, Rebecca L. Johnson, George Go, Mary J. Hargett, Bradley H. Lee, Pamela Wendel, Mark Brouillette, Sang Jo Kim, Lila Baaklini, Douglas S. Wetmore, Genewoo Hong, Rie Goto, Bridget Jivanelli, Vassilis Athanassoglou, Eriphili Αrgyra, Michael J. Barrington, Alain Borgeat, José De Andrés, Kariem El‐Boghdadly, Nabil Elkassabany, Philippe Gautier, Peter Gerner, Alejandro González Della Valle, Enrique A. Goytizolo, Zhenggang Guo, Rosemary Hogg, Henrik Kehlet, Paul Kessler, Sandra L. Kopp, Alan Macfarlane, Catherine H. MacLean, Carlos B. Mantilla, Dan McIsaac, Alexander S. McLawhorn, Joseph M. Neal, Michael L. Parks, Javad Parvizi, Philip Peng, Lukas Pichler, Jashvant Poeran, Lazaros Poultsides, Eric S. Schwenk, Brian D. Sites, Ottokar Stundner, Eric Sun, Eugene R. Viscusi, E. Gina Votta‐Velis, Christopher L. Wu, Jacques T. YaDeau, Nigel E. Sharrock

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialArthroplastyMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewObservational studyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. RESULTS: Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. RECOMMENDATION: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.019
Bibliometrics0.0120.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations191
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207