PubMed · 1888607
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Lyons, R Macdonald. 1991. 29-gauge spinal needles.. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja%2F67.2.222
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are suitable for meta-analysis and systematic reviews provided they are of high quality and are easy to retrieve. We determined these attributes of RCTs in obstetrical anaesthesia in a sample of available journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. SOURCE: Randomized controlled trials published between January 1985 and December 1994 in seven anaesthetic and three obstetric journals were identified by a MEDLINE search, and by handsearch of the same journals. Each RCT was assigned a quality score by a blinded rater using a reliable and validated scaled. The quality of each RCT was described and compared over time and by journal. The comparative yield of MEDLINE and hand-search was evaluated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three hundred and forty RCTs were retrieved by MEDLINE and handsearch. Two hundred and twenty seven (65%) were identified by the MEDLINE search and 333 by the handsearch (98%). The median quality score was 3/5. There was no difference in score over time. Anesthesiology had the highest median score, Anaesthesia had the lowest (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Care must be taken when reviewing obstetrical anaesthesia research. Strategies in addition to a MEDLINE search must be used to identify RCTs since more than one third were missed using MEDLINE alone. Poor quality RCTs are more likely to be biased in favour of a new treatment. Therefore, to increase the validity of reviews sensitivity analyses based on quality should be done.
With spinal anesthesia the level of surgical analgesia is mostly reported without reference to the neuroanatomic map of spinal nerves. The classical maps are variably and inconsistently reported in many textbooks. Because of the differences between the classical maps of Keegan and Garrett and of Foerster, and also because of the variability in their interpretation, we applied them to the same clinical data. This resulted in a theoretically clinically significant difference of two segments. It is concluded that clear reference should be made to the implemented segmental map in expressing the level of spinal blockade.