ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
[Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient].
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07268924 (The Effect of Propofol Versus Lidocaine on Emergence Agitation in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.), which is not on this 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.
The Effect of Propofol Versus Lidocaine on Emergence Agitation in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Subhypnotic Dose of Propofol on Respiratory Adverse Events Following Postoperative Tonsillectomy/Adenotosillecomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Effect of Low-Dose of Propofol on the Respiratory Complications Immediately After Tracheal Extubation in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022Article
- Propofol versus lidocaine on prevention of laryngospasm in tonsillectomy: A randomized clinical trial.European journal of translational myology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-extubation laryngospasm is a dangerous complication that should be managed promptly. Standard measures were described for its management. We aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol (0.5mg.kg
methodThis study was conducted over 2 years on all obstetric patients scheduled for cesarean delivery. Post-extubation laryngospasm was initially managed with a standard protocol (removal of offending stimulus, jaw thrust, positive pressure ventilation with 100% oxygen). When this protocol failed, the tested drug was the second line (lidocaine in the first year and propofol in the second year). Lastly, succinylcholine was used when the tested drug failed.
resultsIn lidocaine group, 5% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 31.9% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 68.1% required lidocaine treatment. 65.6% of patients treated with lidocaine responded successfully and 34.4% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. In propofol group, 4.7% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 30.1% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 69.9% required propofol treatment. 82.8% of patients treated with propofol responded successfully and 17.2% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm.
conclusionSmall dose of propofol (0.5mg.kg
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.