ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia2015
The evolution of spinal/epidural neostigmine in clinical application: Thoughts after two decades.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-dose spinal anesthesia in cesarean section: a narrative review.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Review
- Adjuncts for neuraxial anaesthesia in obstetrics.BJA education · 2025Review
- New advances in clinical application of neostigmine: no longer focusing solely on increasing skeletal muscle strength.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- The Options for Neuraxial Drug Administration.CNS drugs · 2022Review
- Review
- A Comparison of Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine and Neostigmine as Adjuvant to Ropivacaine for Lower Limb Surgeries: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Study.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
- Intrathecal Bupivacaine with Neostigmine and Bupivacaine with Normal Saline for Postoperative Analgesia: A Cost-effective Additive.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the first clinical application of analgesia following spinal anticholinesterase by 1940's, several clinical double-blind studies have been conducted to date, where intrathecal doses of neostigmine in humans ranged from 750 to 1 μg, due to side-effects. Conversely, epidural neostigmine has been evaluated in proportionally higher doses and represents an alternative, but still deserves more investigation concerning both acute and chronic pain, as it seems devoid of important side-effects.
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.