Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31410137›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol as sedatives for pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

Yong Tang, Juan Meng, Xinxian Zhang, Jiong Li, Qiang Zhou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Emergence delirium in children: a Brazilian survey.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
    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.

Yong TangDepartment of Radiology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221006, P.R. China.
Juan MengOperating Room, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221006, P.R. China.
Xinxian ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221006, P.R. China.
Jiong LiDepartment of Radiology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221006, P.R. China.
Qiang ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Xuzhou Children's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221006, P.R. China.
Xuzhou Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dexmedetomidine and propofol are commonly used sedative agents in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The present meta-analysis aimed to compare dexmedetomidine with propofol in pediatric patients undergoing MRI using trial sequential analysis (TSA). The PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge databases were systematically searched for entries up to August 2018 for potential randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with propofol in pediatric patients undergoing MRI. Data were extracted by two independent authors and analyzed using Revman version 5.2 software. Six trials involving 415 pediatric patients were included in the final analysis. A shorter recovery time (P<0.01) and onset time of sedation were identified for propofol compared with dexmedetomidine (P<0.01); however, there were no significant differences in the duration of sedation (P=0.37). Furthermore, pediatric patients receiving propofol were discharged sooner than those receiving dexmedetomidine (P=0.02). The incidence of failed sedation did not significantly differ between the two groups (P=0.81). Propofol induced a lower incidence of 5-min (P=0.03) and 10-min Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (P<0.01), but a higher incidence of desaturation (P<0.01). The duration of MRI was similar between the two groups (P=0.15). TSA indicated that the monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, providing supportive evidence for the shorter recovery time in the propofol group. Propofol is recommended for pediatric sedation during MRI, owing to shorter recovery time and onset of sedation time, as well as a faster discharge from hospital, and a lower incidence of PAED score >10, compared with dexmedetomidine. However, considering the possibility of desaturation, propofol should be used with caution.

Indexed as

dexmedetomidinemagnetic resonance imagingmeta-analysispropofoltrial sequential analysis

Identifiers

PMID31410137
PMCPMC6676186
OpenAlexW2962044200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.