Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2019
Comparing the effect of dexmedetomidine and labetalol on hemodynamic variables in patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy.
Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Ropivacaine and Medium-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Cesarean Section.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Etomidate on Intraoperative Wake-Up Equality, Hemodynamics, and Cerebral Protection in Operation of the Brain Functional Area.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study was conducted to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine and labetalol on hemodynamic variables in patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this randomized clinical trial study 70 patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy were involved. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Patients in dexmedetomidine group received 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine diluted in 100 ml of saline solution and the patients in the second group received 0.25 mg/kg of labetalol before anesthesia induction. At the beginning of the surgery, dexmedetomidine was infused at the dose of 0.4 μg/kg/h in the dexmedetomidine group, and labetalol at the dose of 1.8 mg/kg/h in the labetalol group. Patients' systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate at different times and anesthesia and surgery duration, recovery time and dose of prescribed propofol were recorded and compared between two groups.
resultsThere was a significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure, mean diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial blood pressure and mean heart rate between two groups at different times (p value < 0.05).
conclusionThe results of this study indicated that dexmedetomidine had higher efficacy, compared to labetalol, in reducing diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and mean arterial blood pressure following microlaryngoscopy.
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.