Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25784792›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Dezocine for anesthesia and stress reduction in induced abortion.

Mengliang Zheng, Yanru Guo, Shiqiang Shan, Sen Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Relationship betweenBioscience reports · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mengliang ZhengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Yanru GuoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Shiqiang ShanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Sen YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Cangzhou Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dezocine with regard to analgesic and stress reduction outcomes in women undergoing induced abortion.

methodsA total of 126 women in early pregnancy (up to 14 weeks' gestation) who underwent induced abortion at Cangzhou Central Hospital from May 2012 to May 2013 were randomly assigned to a control (propofol) group (n=63) or an intervention (propofol + dezocine) group (n=63). Wake-up time, orientation force recovery time, incidence of adverse reactions, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, analgesic effect, and respiratory and circulatory monitoring before the operation, 5 minutes into the operation, and 5 minutes after the operation were compared between the two groups.

resultsThe surgical procedure and anesthesia were performed successfully in all patients. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and oxyhemoglobin saturation in the intervention group were significantly higher than in the control group; however, heart rate was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group 5 minutes into the operation (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in these parameters before surgery and after recovery. The postoperative VAS score (2.82±0.72), Ramsay score (2.65±0.65), and anesthetic effect in the intervention group were better than in the control group (3.90±0.84 and 2.21±0.49, respectively), and all differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The wake-up time (3.41±0.79 minutes) and orientation force recovery time (4.28±0.92 minutes) were all significantly shorter (P<0.05) in the intervention group than in the control group, as was the incidence of adverse reactions (7.94% versus 26.98%, respectively).

conclusionAdverse reactions of propofol combined with dezocine in painless induced abortion are less while the analgesic effect is better.

Indexed as

analgesic effectdezocinepainless induced abortionstress

Identifiers

PMID25784792
PMCPMC4356682
OpenAlexW2003937952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.