Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26550100›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis.

Hongwei Fang, Liu Yang, Xiangrui Wang, Hao Zhu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Emergence delirium in children: a Brazilian survey.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
    Article
  15. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hongwei FangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Bengbu Medical College Anhui, Bengbu 233004, P.R. China ; Department of Anesthesiology, RenJi Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University Shanghai, China.
Liu YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Wannan Medical College Wuhu, Anhui, China.
Xiangrui WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, RenJi Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University Shanghai, China.
Hao ZhuDepartment of Anesthesiology, RenJi Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University Shanghai, China.
Renji Hospital · CNBengbu Medical College · CNWannan Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dexmedetomidine, as a sole or combinable sedative, has served in pediatric sedation undergoing MRI. However, clinical effects of dexmedetomidine are still controversial. This meta-analysis was to assess the effects between dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing MRI, especially outcomes and adverse events of patients. Multiple Electronic Database searched including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library, and updated to April 2015. All statistical analysis utilized review manager to perform, the Cochrane collaboration's software preparation and maintenance of Cochrane systematic reviews. Five trials with a total of 337 patients were included. Compared with propofol group, dexmedetomidine significantly increased the recovery time (WMD: 10.70 min; 95% CI: 4.26-17.13; P = 0.001). The duration of sedation did not appear to decrease for the patients who received dexmedetomidine than for those who received propofol (WMD: 19.96 min; 95% CI: -4.12-44.04; P = 0.1). There were statistically significant increased in the pediatric anesthesia emergence Delirium scores of 5-min after awakening (WMD: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.81; P = 0.0008) and 10-min after awakening (WMD: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.81 to 4.31; P < 0.00001) in patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine than propofol. Improved the prognosis of patients, nonetheless, dexmedetomidine must have an indispensable role to undergoing pediatric MRI scanning. Compared with propofol, however, dexmedetomidine did not induce the duration of sedation and might lead to a longer recovery time.

Indexed as

childrenDexmedetomidinegeneral anestheticsmeta-analysisMRIpropofolrandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID26550100
PMCPMC4612785
OpenAlexW2403981882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.