Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28413280›Full record

ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures.

Shirishkumar Gulabrao Chavan, Surita Mandhyan, Sandhya Haridas Gujar, Gourish Prakash Shinde

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Shirishkumar Gulabrao ChavanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, ESIC Medical College and PGIMSR, KK Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Surita MandhyanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, LTMMC, Sion, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sandhya Haridas GujarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, ESIC-PGIMSR, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Gourish Prakash ShindeDepartment of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia, Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
ESIC Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA popular method of providing anesthesia for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion is with the use of propofol. However, bolus propofol has been associated with adverse effects such as hypotension, apnea and pain on injection. Hence, time is needed to search an alternative. We aimed to compare the induction characteristics, ease of LMA insertion, hemodynamic changes and complications with inhalation of 8% sevoflurane vital capacity breath and propofol. MATERIAL AND

methodsA prospective randomized study of 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists' Grade I and II patients was conducted and distributed among two groups with 30 each undergoing gynecological procedures under general anesthesia. Group

resultsSevoflurane took a longer time for induction and for LMA insertion than propofol. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, with respect to LMA insertion characteristics, heart rate, mean arterial pressure. It is concluded that sevoflurane is associated with good hemodynamic stability and may prove useful incases where propofol is to be avoided. However, the ease of insertion provided with propofol is better.

Indexed as

Hemodynamic changeslaryngeal mask airwaypropofolsevoflurane

Identifiers

PMID28413280
PMCPMC5374839
OpenAlexW2611396200

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.