This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Youfa Zhou
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of QLB versus controls in women undergoing cesarean section (CS). We systematically searched Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, VIP, WANFANG, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Trials were eligible if parturients received QLB during CS. GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of evidence and Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed to determine whether the results are supported by sufficient data. Thirteen studies involving 1269 patients were included. Compared to controls, QLB significantly reduced the cumulative postoperative intravenous opioid consumption (in milligram morphine equivalents) at 24h (MD, -11.51 mg; 95% CI -17.05 to -5.96) and 48h (MD, -15.87 mg; 95% CI -26.36 to -5.38), supported by sufficient data confirmed by TSA. The postoperative pain scores were significantly reduced by QLB at 4h, 6h, 12h, 24h, and 48h postoperatively by QLB compared with control. Moreover, the time to first request for rescue analgesic and the incidence of PONV were also significantly reduced by QLB. The quality of evidence of most results were low and moderate assessed by GRADE.
Keywords
Caesarean section, Meta-analysis, Quadratus lumborum block, Trial sequential analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 12 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 31 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 18 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 17 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 17 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 04 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 27 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Youfa Zhou
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 12 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 31 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 18 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 17 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 17 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 04 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 27 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of QLB versus controls in women undergoing cesarean section (CS). We systematically searched Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, VIP, WANFANG, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Trials were eligible if parturients received QLB during CS. GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of evidence and Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed to determine whether the results are supported by sufficient data. Thirteen studies involving 1269 patients were included. Compared to controls, QLB significantly reduced the cumulative postoperative intravenous opioid consumption (in milligram morphine equivalents) at 24h (MD, -11.51 mg; 95% CI -17.05 to -5.96) and 48h (MD, -15.87 mg; 95% CI -26.36 to -5.38), supported by sufficient data confirmed by TSA. The postoperative pain scores were significantly reduced by QLB at 4h, 6h, 12h, 24h, and 48h postoperatively by QLB compared with control. Moreover, the time to first request for rescue analgesic and the incidence of PONV were also significantly reduced by QLB. The quality of evidence of most results were low and moderate assessed by GRADE.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...