ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Cost-effectiveness of different regimens of anesthesia for day surgery in China.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recovery Kinetics and Postoperative Outcomes of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Sevoflurane in Ambulatory Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Effects of different doses of cisatracurium besilate on hemodynamics and postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing radical resection of lung cancer.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- A restrictive dose of crystalloids in patients during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and cost-effective: prospective, two-arm parallel, randomized controlled trial.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the cost-effectiveness of inhalation of sevoflurane, target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, intravenous (IV) propofol for induction-inhalation of sevoflurane, and IV propofol for induction-inhalation of desoflurane for anesthesia maintenance in day surgery.
methods240 patients, scheduled for elective day surgery, were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 60 each): inhalation of sevoflurane anesthesia group (group S); TCI of propofol anesthesia (group P); and intravenous propofol for induction of anesthesia-inhalation of sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia group (group PS); and intravenous propofol for induction of anesthesia-inhalation of desoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia group (group PD).
resultsGroup S was associated with less time to loss of consciousness, as well as the other three groups were associated with less time to recovery (P < 0.05). Group P was associated with a higher anesthetic agents cost than other 3 groups (P < 0.05), and group S was associated with a higher anesthetic agents costs than group PS and PD (P < 0.05).
conclusionInduction with intravenous injection of propofol and maintenance with inhalation of desoflurane is the most cost-effective method of anesthesia for day surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25664101PMC4307548W2319271993What 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.