ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
The association of the optimal bolus of dexmedetomidine with its favourable haemodynamic outcomes in adult surgical patients under general anaesthesia.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous Bolus of Dexmedetomidine for Treatment of Severe Shivering After Caesarean Delivery Under Combined Spinal-Epidural Anaesthesia: A Randomized Dose-Response Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Trial
- Dexmedetomidine Dosing Strategies in Sedation and Anesthesia: Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Applications - A Narrative Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- The association of the optimal bolus of dexmedetomidine with its favourable haemodynamic outcomes in adult surgical patients under general anaesthesia.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDexmedetomidine is highly specific α2-adrenoceptor agonist. A single bolus of dexmedetomidine can achieve clinical therapeutic effect. Therefore, it is essential to know the safety margin between the clinical effectiveness dosages of dexmedetomidine and its side effect.
methodsA total of 42 patients who underwent elective thyroidectomy were enrolled in this study. Dexmedetomidine was given as a single bolus injection 30 min towards the end of surgery. The up-and-down sequential schedule was used in this study. The starting dose of dexmedetomidine was set at 0.1 μg/kg in the first patient and the next patient would then receive a dose of dexmedetomidine decremented by 0.05 μg/kg if the prior patient's baseline heart rate (HR) had a decrease of ≥20% and/or mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) increase or decrease of ≥20%, otherwise, the following patient would receive an incremental 0.05 μg/kg dose of dexmedetomidine. The analytic techniques of linear, linear-logarithmic, exponential regressions and centred isotonic regression were used to determine the ED50 of dexmedetomidine and the residual standard errors were calculated for the comparison of goodness of fit among the different models.
resultsThe median (interquartile range [range]) lowest HR was 57 beats/min (53-63.3[46-76]) with an average HR decrease of 8.0 beats/min (5-13 [4 to 23]). The median (interquartile range [range]) highest MAP was 98 mmHg (91.8-105 [83-126]) with a MAP increase of 10.0 mmHg (6.8-18.0 [2-24]). The ED50 (95% confidence interval) from 4 different statistical approaches (linear, linear-logarithmic, exponential regressions and centred isotonic regression) were 0.262 μg/kg (0.243, 0.306), 0.252 μg/kg (0.238, 0.307), 0.283 μg/kg (0.238, 0.307), and 0.278 μg/kg, respectively. Among the 4 models, the exponential regression had the least residual standard error (0.03618).
conclusionThe ED50 derived from 4 statistical models for an intravenous bolus of dexmedetomidine without significant haemodynamic effects was distributed in a narrow range of 0.252-0.283 μg/kg, and the exponential regression was the model to best match the study data.
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.