Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27275058›Full record

ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Intravenous dexmedetomidine versus propofol for intraoperative moderate sedation during spinal anesthesia: A comparative study.

Pratibha Jain Shah, Kamta Prasad Dubey, Kamal Kishore Sahare, Amit Agrawal

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Comparing Efficacy of Propofol and Dexmedetomidine in Conscious Sedation During Stapedotomy Surgery.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Pratibha Jain ShahPt. J. N. M. Medical College and Dr. BRAM Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Kamta Prasad DubeyPt. J. N. M. Medical College and Dr. BRAM Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Kamal Kishore SaharePt. J. N. M. Medical College and Dr. BRAM Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Amit AgrawalPt. J. N. M. Medical College and Dr. BRAM Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThere has been a paradigm shift of focus toward quality of spinal anesthesia with sedation being an integral aspect of this regional anesthesia technique. Thus, this study was designed to compare efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine and propofol for moderate sedation during spinal anesthesia. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 120 patients of age group 18-60 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I & II, posted for surgeries under spinal anesthesia were randomly divided in to three groups (n = 40 each); Group D received infusion of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by maintenance infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h. Group P received infusion of propofol 6 mg/kg/h for 10 min followed by the infusion maintenance of 2.5 mg/kg/h. Group C (control group) received normal saline. Level of sedation (using observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score), pain intensity (by visual analogue scale), onset and recovery from sedation, hemodynamic changes, and overall patient's satisfaction were assessed.

resultsThe onset and recovery from sedation were significantly earlier with propofol (15.57 ± 1.89 min vs. 27.06 ± 2.26 min; P < 0.001) however intraoperative sedation (level 4), and overall patient's satisfaction was significantly better with dexmedetomidine group (p < 0.05). Duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly prolonged with dexmedetomidine (225.53 ± 5.61 min vs. 139.60 ± 3.03 min; P = 0.0013). Mean heart rate and blood pressure were significantly lower in the propofol group (P < 0.05).

conclusionDexmedetomidine with its stable cardio-respiratory profile, better sedation, overall patient's satisfaction, and analgesia could be a valuable adjunct for intraoperative sedation during spinal anesthesia.

Indexed as

Dexmedetomidinemoderate sedationpropofol

Identifiers

PMID27275058
PMCPMC4874083
OpenAlexW2403992442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.