Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2020
The effect of vitamin D status on different neuromuscular blocker agents reverse time
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of pupillary responses in pediatric patients with vitamin D deficiency.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study is aimed to investigate the effects of vitamin D levels on sugammadex and neostigmine reversal times. Material and methods: Eighty patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years, with ASA I-III status who were undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were included in the study. A double blind fashion was used to randomly divide all the patients into two groups. At the end of the operation, sugammadex 2 mg/kg was administered to one group (Group sugammadex) and atropine and neostigmine was administered to the other group (Group neostigmine) intravenously. In the data analysis stage, the group was divided into two subgroups according to sugammadex and group neostigmine in itself, with vitamin D levels above and below 30 ng/mL. Statistical analysis was performed on these 4 groups (Group neostigmine and vitamin D < 30 ng/mL), (Group neostigmine and vitamin D ≥ 30 ng/mL), ( Group sugammadex and vitamin D < 30 ng/mL), (Group sugammadex and vitamin D ≥ 30 ng/mL). When two responses to train of four (TOF) stimulation were taken, the following times were recorded until extubation phase. The time until TOF value 50%, 70%, 90%, and extubation were recorded. Results: There were statistically significant differences between Group sugammadex and vitamin D < 30 ng/mL and Group sugammadex and vitamin D ≥ 30 ng/mL (P = 0.007) for extubation times and 50% TOF reach times (P = 0.015). However, there was no difference observed between Group neostigmine and vitamin D < 30 ng/mL and Group neostigmine and vitamin D ≥ 30 ng/mL (P = 0.999). Conclusion: Vitamin D deficiency is important for anesthesiologists in terms of muscle strength and extubation time. Vitamin D deficiency seems to affect sugammadex reverse times but seems not to affect neostigmine reverse times. This conclusion needs further studies.
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.