Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 986

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of Postoperative Epidural Analgesia: A Meta-analysis

Block, Brian M., Liu, Spencer S., Rowlingson, Andrew J., Cowan, Anne R., Cowan, Jr, John A., Wu, Christopher L.·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Whether epidural analgesia is a better method than parenteral opioids for postoperative pain control remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia vs parenteral opioids, the primary alternative technique. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified primarily by searching the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to April 25, 2002) and other sources for studies related to postoperative epidural analgesia. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were a comparison of epidural therapy vs parenteral opioids for postoperative analgesia, measurement of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale, randomization of patients to either therapy, and adult patients (> or =18 years). A total of 1404 abstracts were identified, 100 of which met all inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Each article was reviewed and data extracted from tables, text, or extrapolated from figures as needed. Weighted mean pain scores, weighted mean differences in pain score, and weighted incidences of complications were determined by using a fixed-effect model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Epidural analgesia provided better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioids (mean [SE], 19.40 mm [0.17] vs 29.40 mm [0.20] on the VAS; P<.001). When analyzed by postoperative day, epidural analgesia was better than parenteral opioids on each postoperative day (P<.001 for each day after surgery). For all types of surgery and pain assessments, all forms of epidural analgesia provided significantly better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioid analgesia (P<.001 for all), with the exception of thoracic epidural analgesia vs opioids for rest pain after thoracic surgery (weighted mean difference, 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 1.5 mm; P =.12). The complication rates were lower than expected for nausea or vomiting and pruritus but comparable with existing data for lower extremity motor block. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia, regardless of analgesic agent, location of catheter placement, and type and time of pain assessment, provided better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioids.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.290.18.2455

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 986

Metadata

Authors
Block, B. M., Liu, S. S., Rowlingson, A. J., Cowan, A. R., Cowan, Jr., & Wu, C. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-11-12
Volume
290
Issue
18
Pages
2455
ISSN
0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2067902058
Cited by
986
References
5
FWCI
36.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of Postoperative Epidural Analgesia: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.290.18.2455
The paper
Block, B. M., Liu, S. S., Rowlingson, A. J., Cowan, A. R., Cowan, Jr., & Wu, C. L. (2003). Efficacy of Postoperative Epidural Analgesia: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.18.2455

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.