Methodological quality of systematic reviews on the erector spinae plane block: A systematic review
Authors' conclusion
Although the ESP block is widely supported by existing literature, the methodological quality of most MAs remains suboptimal.
Study context
- Population
- Meta-analyses evaluating the erector spinae plane (ESP) block published 2016–2025Meta-analyses (MAs) included
- Participants
- 97 participants
- Outcome
- Methodological quality (AMSTAR-2)
Methodological detailsmethodological quality assessment, AMSTAR-2 appraisal, corrected covered area overlap analysis, multivariate analyses
- Methodological quality assessment
- AMSTAR-2 appraisal
- Corrected covered area overlap analysis
- Multivariate analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- High quality
- 7 (7.2%)
- Moderate quality
- 9 (9.3%)
- Low quality
- 41 (42.3%)
- Critically low quality
- 40 (41.2%)
- Missing funding statements
- 98%
- Absence of excluded study lists
- 40%
Further pooled results
Characteristics of included MAs
- Single-injection techniques
- 91.8%
- Adults
- 87.6%
- Thoracic-level blocks
- 48.5%
- Abdominal surgeries
- 33%
Study overlap across reviews
- RCTs identified across all reviews
- 1214
- Unique RCTs
- 571
- Corrected covered area (CCA)
- 1.17%
Original publication
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on the erector spinae plane block: A systematic review. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 6 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →