The Effect of Fascia Iliaca Compartment Blockade on Mortality in Patients With Hip Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether perioperative fascia iliaca compartment blockade (FICB) decreases mortality in patients with hip fracture. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid platforms), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews were screened for "fascia iliaca compartment block, hip fracture" articles in English, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, from January 1, 2005, to March 1, 2020. All relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies were included for analysis. Relevant article titles were identified, and their corresponding abstracts were independently reviewed by two authors for inclusion. The full-text articles were then obtained for all relevant identified abstracts and assessed for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Conflicts in quality assessment between the two independent reviewers were resolved by a consensus vote of all authors. RESULTS: Study quality was assessed objectively using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This meta-analysis was done in accordance with the PRISMA (http://links.lww.com/JAAOS/A731) and QUORUM guidelines. Quantitative synthesis analysis was done using Cochrane Reviews Review Manager (version 5.3). All analyses were completed using random-effects models and comparing the individual effect sizes within each study. DISCUSSION: Management of hip fracture pain with FICB does not markedly decrease short-term mortality. Our findings support the continued use of FICB for the management of hip fractures in geriatric patients and suggest the need for future prospective randomized controlled trials to further determine FICB's effect on short-term and long-term mortality and functional status. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I.
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 | 0.027 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".