Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Little information was given on inclusion criteria
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Rodgers et al report a meta-analysis of 141 trials comparing
general anaesthesia with neuraxial blocks.1 They conclude that their data should result in more widespread use of spinal or
epidural anaesthesia. The challenge for clinicians is deciding which of
their patients (if any) these results apply to, but Rodgers et al
provided little information about the inclusion criteria for the trials
examined. The applicability of a meta-analysis is difficult to assess
when heterogeneous patient groups are combined. Also, although a spinal
or epidural anaesthetic might be reasonably standard, there are many
general anaesthetic agents and these may not be comparable.
Figure 1 of the meta-analysis shows that four trials contributed 31 deaths to the overall mortality difference of 41.2-5 In those four studies the mortality from general anaesthesia ranged from 8% to 27%, compared with 3.1% for all trials combined.
We wonder whether any information was collated on antithrombosis
prophylaxis. In