Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31341824›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2019

Comparison of the Sedation Quality of Etomidate, Propofol, and Midazolam in Combination with Fentanyl During Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial.

Leili Adinehmehr, Hamidreza Shetabi, Darioush Moradi Farsani, Ali Salehi, Mohadese Noorbakhsh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating the preventive effect of metoclopramide and aminophylline on pain after deep vitrectomy.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leili AdinehmehrAnesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7870-4049
Hamidreza ShetabiAnesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5165-8385
Darioush Moradi FarsaniAnesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-1610
Ali SalehiOphthalmology Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohadese NoorbakhshIsfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during phacoemulsification and lack of any studies investigating the sedative effect of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam in combination with fentanyl during the procedure.

objectivesThe current study aimed at comparing the sedative properties of the mentioned three combination therapies in this field.

methodsThe current double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients referred for elective phacoemulsification surgery under sedation. They were randomly allocated to the three groups to receive fentanyl plus one of the following medications: Propofol, midazolam, and etomidate. Demographic characteristics, medical condition, and hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after surgery, sedation level, anesthetic complications, sedation-related adverse events, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction were evaluated and recorded by the anesthesiologist and compared in the three studied groups.

resultsIn the current study, out of 150 enrolled patients, 98 completed the study. Frequency of different levels of Ramsay scores was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.41). Frequency of Ramsay scores 3 and 4 was 92%, 79.4%, and 88.2% in etomidate, midazolam and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The median recovery time was significantly higher in the midazolam group than the propofol group (P = 0.04); intergroup comparisons indicated that the patients' mean score of satisfaction in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the etomidate group (P = 0.006).

conclusionsThe current study findings indicated that though the quality of sedation during phacoemulsification cataract surgery was acceptable in the three agents and the results had no significantly differences among the groups, and considering other factors including recovery time, hemodynamic evaluation, sedation-related complications, and patients' satisfication scores, it is suggested that propofol was superior to the other two agents.

Indexed as

EtomidateMidazolamPhacoemulsificationPropofolSedation

Identifiers

PMID31341824
PMCPMC6616865
OpenAlexW2941618294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.