MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295339279 · doi:10.1111/jocs.16882

Median sternotomy pain after cardiac surgery: To block, or not? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4295339279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMedian sternotomyCardiac surgerySurgeryMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inadequate pain control after median sternotomy leads to reduced mobilization, increased respiratory complications, and longer hospital stays. Typically, postoperative pain is controlled by opioid analgesics that may have several adverse effects. Parasternal intercostal block (PSB) has emerged as part of a multimodal strategy to control pain after median sternotomy. However, the effectiveness of this intervention on postoperative pain control and analgesic use has not been fully established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of PSB on postoperative pain and analgesic use in adult cardiac surgery patients undergoing median sternotomy. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database were searched with the following search strategy: ([postoperative pain] or [pain relief] OR [analgesics] or [analgesia] or [nerve block] or [regional block] or [local block] or [regional anesthesia] or [local anesthetic] or [parasternal block] and [sternotomy]) and (humans [filter]). Inclusion criteria were: patients who underwent cardiac surgery via median sternotomy, age >18 and parasternal block (continuous and single dose). Exclusion criteria were: noncardiac surgery, nonparasternal nerve blocks, and the use of NSAIDS in parasternal block. Quality assessment was performed by three independent reviewers via the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Of 1165 total citations, 18 were found to be relevant. Of these 18 citations, 7 citations (N = 2223 patients) reported postoperative pain scores in an extractable format and 11 citations (N = 2155 patients) reported postoperative opioid use in an extractable format. For postoperative opioid use, morphine equivalent doses were calculated for all studies and postoperative pain scores were standardized to a 10-point visual analog scale for comparison between studies; both these were reported as total opioid use or cumulative score ranging from 24 to 72 h postoperative. All data analyses were run using a random effects model, using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator, to obtain summary standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI's). For studies which only reported median and interquatile range (IQR), the median was standard deviation was estimated by IQR/1.35. Following median sternotomy both postoperative pain (SMD [95% CI] -0.49 [-0.92 to -0.06]) and postoperative morphine equivalent use (SMD [95% CI] -1.68 [-3.11 to -0.25]) were significantly less in the PSB group. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that parasternal nerve block significantly reduces postoperative pain and opioid use.

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.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0320.024
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.321
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