Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32107487›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

General anesthesia technique and perception of quality of postoperative recovery in women undergoing cholecystectomy: A randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

Daniel de Carli, José Fernando Amaral Meletti, Neri Edu Urnau Neto, Gabriel Martinez, André Luís Corrêa Kim, Rodrigo Pauperio Soares de Camargo

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel de CarliDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1396-201X
José Fernando Amaral MelettiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Neri Edu Urnau NetoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Gabriel MartinezDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4096-435X
André Luís Corrêa KimDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3305-1766
Rodrigo Pauperio Soares de CamargoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Faculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe two most common general anesthesia techniques are total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and venous/inhalation balanced general anesthesia (BGA). It is unclear whether any of these two techniques affect patient perception of the quality of recovery. The aim of this randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was to assess the quality of postoperative recovery of women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. We compared patients who received TIVA with those who received BGA. We also evaluated the factors that may decrease patient-perceived quality of postoperative recovery.

methodsWe prospectively recruited 121 women aged 18-65 years who were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to cholelithiasis. These patients were randomized to receive TIVA (target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil) or BGA (continuous remifentanil infusion and sevoflurane inhalation). To measure the quality of postanesthetic and postoperative recovery, we administered the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire 24 hours after the patient awoke from anesthesia.

resultsAll 60 patients in the TIVA group responded to QoR-40 (median, 188 points; minimum 128; maximum 200). Sixty-one patients in the BGA group had a mean QoR-40 score of 186 points (median, 188 points; minimum 146; maximum 200). There was no significant difference in the QoR-40 score between the two groups (p = 0.577). The patients who presented postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain had worse perception of the quality of postoperative recovery.

conclusionsBoth TIVA and BGA had a similar effect on the perception of the quality of postoperative recovery in women undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PONV and pain may negatively affect patient perception of the quality of postoperative recovery.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthesia, GeneralCholecystectomyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansPerceptionPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID32107487
PMCPMC7046219
OpenAlexW3007570380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.