Efficacy and Safety of Paravertebral Block Versus Spinal Anesthesia for Adult Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Le résumé fourni par la source

Quality assessment / Risk of bias analysis Two independent reviewers assessed study bias, crossverifying results.Using the Cochrane Handbook for S y s t e m a t i c R e v i e w s ( v e r s i o n 5 . 1 .0 ) , t h e assessment examined seven key domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessor blinding, outcome data completeness, selective reporting, and other potential biases.Each domain was rated as high, low, or unclear risk per Cochrane Handbook guidelines.Strategy of data synthesis RevMan 5.4 software was used to synthesize data.Continuous outcomes were summarized with mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), while categorical outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% CI.Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Chi-square test; a fixed-effects model was applied for I² ≤ 50% or P > 0.1, and a random-effects model otherwise.Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed as necessary to assess result robustness and explore clinical heterogeneity.Subgroup analysis Subgroup analyses were conducted for outcomes with substantial heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analyses were performed by sequentially excluding individual studies to evaluate their influence on the overall findings for each outcome measure. Country(ies) involvedChina.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.