ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A non-randomized controlled study of total intravenous anesthesia regimens for magnetic resonance imaging studies in children.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Propofol as a Sole Sedative for fMRI Sedation in Autism Spectrum Disorder Individuals with Low IQ.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Ketodex for MRI sedation in syndromic children with congenital cardiac anomalies - A case series.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWe studied the efficacy and safety of different total intravenous anesthesia used for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIAL AND
methodsChildren of 1-7 years age (
resultsInitiation of scan was 100% successful with median induction time of 10 min. Maintenance of sedation was successful in 100% with dexmedetomidine and 97.4% with propofol infusion. Recovery time (25 min v/s 30 min), discharge time (35 min v/s 60 min), and total care duration (80 min v/s 105 min) were significantly less with propofol as compared to dexmedetomidine (
conclusionDexmedetomidine 1μg/kg, ketamine 1 mg/kg, and propofol 1 mg/kg provide good conditions for initiation of MRI. Although dexmedetomidine at 0.7μg/kg/h and propofol at 3 mg/kg/h are safe and effective for maintenance, propofol provides faster recovery.
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.