SynthesisMedicine2018
Clinical efficacy of xenon versus propofol: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06080100 (RELIEF OF PSYCHOEMOTIONAL STRESS BEFORE REFRACTIVE LASER VISION CORRECTION SURGERY USING XENON SEDATION), 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.
Relief of psychoemotional stress before refractive laser vision correction surgery using xenon sedation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noble gases xenon and argon: from cellular signalling mechanisms to organoprotection and clinical applications.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of xenon and argon inhalation on erythropoiesis and steroidogenesis: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Update of the organoprotective properties of xenon and argon: from bench to beside.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterest in the anesthetic use of xenon, a noble gas, has waxed and waned for decades, and the clinical effects of xenon are still debated. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of xenon with that of propofol.
methodsElectronic searches were performed through December 2017 using various databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We identified thirteen trials that included a total of 817 patients.
resultsPatients treated with xenon had a lower bispectral index (BIS) (weighted mean difference (WMD): -6.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.33 to -1.18, P = .02), a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (WMD: 7.00, 95% CI: 2.32-11.68, P = .003) and a lower heart rate (HR) (WMD: -9.45, 95% CI: -12.28 to -6.63, P < 0.00001) than propofol-treated patients. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the effects of nondepolarizing muscular relaxants, the duration spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (WMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -8.79-6.91, P = .81), or the incidence of perioperative complications [assessed using the outcomes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (relative risk (RR): 2.01, 95% CI: 0.79-5.11, P = .14), hypotension (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.40, P = .25), hypertension (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.73-2.21, P = .39) and bradycardia (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36-2.74, P = 1.00)].
conclusionIn this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we found that xenon treatment resulted in a higher MAP, a lower HR, and a smaller BIS index than treatment with propofol.
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.