Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) vs general anaesthesia: Anaesthetic placement failure
Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) showed no clear difference in anaesthetic placement failure compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) vs general anaesthesia Anaesthetic placement failure · Preterm infants requiring surgery for inguinal hernia in early infancy Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) showed no clear difference in anaesthetic placement failure compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty). Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 7.38 [0.98, 55.52] | 3 studies · 90 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.