ArticleAnesthesia and analgesia2006
Anesthetic properties of a propofol microemulsion in dogs.
Article in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthesis and evaluation of hydroponically alginate nanoparticles as novel carrier for intravenous delivery of propofol.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
- Getting oil and water to mix.Anesthesiology · 2012Article
- Preparation and evaluation of novel mixed micelles as nanocarriers for intravenous delivery of propofol.Nanoscale research letters · 2011Article
- The effect and optimal dose of sufentanil in reducing injection pain of microemulsion propofol.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2011Article
- Thromboelastographic and pharmacokinetic profiles of micro- and macro-emulsions of propofol in swine.Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microemulsions of propofol with nanometer droplet diameter are alternatives to soybean macroemulsions for inducing anesthesia, and may have important advantages. We used a propofol (10 mg/mL) microemulsion (particle diameter 24.5 +/- 0.5 nm) and a commercial macroemulsion to induce anesthesia in dogs (n = 10) using a randomized, crossover design separated by a 7-day rest interval. The end points were loss of leg withdrawal after a toe pinch and changes in vital signs. Venous blood samples were acquired at multiple times to measure plasma propofol concentrations and indices of erythrocytes, leukocytes, and coagulation. All dogs were rendered insensitive to pain followed by successful recovery without noticeable complications. Comparing indices between microemulsion and macroemulsion formulations, no differences were noted with respect to dose (10.3 +/- 1.2 and 9.7 +/- 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, P = 0.39), time to induction (1.0 +/- 0.1 and 1.0 +/- 0.2 min, P = 0.39), time to recovery (17.4 +/- 4.6 and 18.2 +/- 3.8 min, P = 0.70), heart rate (P = 0.62), arterial blood pressure (P = 0.81), respiratory rate (P = 0.60), hemogram variables, prothrombin time (P = 0.89), activated partial thromboplastin time (P = 0.76), fibrinogen concentration (P = 0.52), platelet concentration (P = 0.55), or plasma propofol concentrations (P = 0.20). Induction with a propofol microemulsion or macroemulsion did not significantly vary with respect to vital signs, the hemogram, clotting variables, and plasma propofol concentrations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.