The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of Continuous Wound Catheters Delivering Local Anesthetic for Postoperative Analgesia: A Quantitative and Qualitative Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
E A a n ffective postoperative analgesia is important from the atient’s perspective and can also improve clinical outomes. Recent surveys report only modest success in roviding suitable analgesia, as 30% to 86% of surgical atients report moderate to severe pain after a surgical rocedure. Although “advanced” analgesic techniques, uch as epidural analgesia or perineural catheters, can rovide superior analgesia, many of these analgesic moalities are labor-intensive and expensive. A promising odality that might help improve postoperative analgeia is the relatively simple technique in which the sureon directly places a catheter to infuse local anesthetic nto wounds at the end of the procedure. This modality an be widely used, is technically efficient, offers the otential to provide complete analgesia or to substanially reduce the need for opioids and their related side ffects, can be used for several days, and can now, with he introduction of new portable pumps, be used on an mbulatory basis. Although there are multiple reports nd small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examinng use of continuous wound catheters in multiple surical procedures, there have been conflicting reports of he overall efficacy, and no single, large RCT has defintively assessed the risk benefit of this modality. We conucted this systematic review of randomized trials to etermine the efficacy of this modality.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Cited by
White, P. F., Kehlet, H., Neal, J. M., Schricker, T., Carr, D. B., & Carli, F. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000263034.96885.e1 · Cited by 485
Lassen, K., Coolsen, M. M. E., Slim, K., Carli, F., de Aguilar‐Nascimento, J. E., Schäfer, M., Parks, R. W., Fearon, K. C. H., Lobo, D. N., Demartines, N., et al. (2013) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1771-1 · Cited by 473
Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery
Charlton, S., Cyna, A. M., Middleton, P., & Griffiths, J. D. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007705.pub2 · Cited by 270
Retracted
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, S. S., Richman, J. M., Thirlby, R. C., & Wu, C. L.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 203
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 914-932
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2153337371
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.01
- 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 Continuous Wound Catheters Delivering Local Anesthetic for Postoperative Analgesia: A Quantitative and Qualitative Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.007
- The paper
- Liu, S. S., Richman, J. M., Thirlby, R. C., & Wu, C. L. (2006). Efficacy of Continuous Wound Catheters Delivering Local Anesthetic for Postoperative Analgesia: A Quantitative and Qualitative Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.007
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.