Clinical utility of randomized controlled trials of regional anesthesia for lower-extremity surgery: a systematic review.
Danielle Waller, Josh Saurino, Adam Khan et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review evaluated the clinical utility and transparency of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on regional anesthesia (RA) for lower-extremity surgeries. Among 248 RCTs, patient-centeredness was universal, but only 2.0% were pragmatic. Transparency improved over time and correlated with clinical-utility scores (r=0.32, p<0.001).
Key findings
- Patient-centeredness was universal across the 248 RCTs evaluated.
- Only 2.0% of trials were classified as pragmatic.
- Transparency improved over time and correlated with clinical-utility scores (r=0.32, p<0.001).
- Conflicts of interest were disclosed in 88.7% of the trials.
Why it matters
Understanding the transparency and utility of RCTs in regional anesthesia can guide clinicians in selecting effective pain management strategies, ensuring that evidence-based practices are grounded in high-quality research.
What to keep in mind
Usefulness scoring involves subjective judgment; non-English trials were excluded, and the absence of formal risk of bias analysis limits interpretability of trial quality.