ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2020
An observational case-control study comparing the recovery profile in patients receiving additional dose of anticonvulsant vs. regular dose during supratentorial craniotomy.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis with phenytoin toxicity: A diagnostic dilemma and management challenge.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- In Reply to: An observational case-control study comparing the recovery profile in patients receiving additional dose of anticonvulsant vs. regular dose during supratentorial craniotomy.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Response to the comments raised by the readers to our published article "An observational case-control study comparing the recovery profile in patients receiving additional dose of anticonvulsant vs. regular dose during supratentorial craniotomy."Indian journal of anaesthesia · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAnticonvulsants are used routinely for seizure prophylaxis in patients with supratentorial tumour who present with/without seizures. Excessive use of prophylactic anticonvulsant may delay the recovery from anaesthesia. We have studied the recovery profiles of patients who received an additional dose of anticonvulsant in comparison with those who received only the regular dose.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, patients were anaesthetised using standard anaesthesia protocol. An additional dose of anticonvulsant was administered in one group, while the other group received only the regular dose. Time taken for extubation, eye opening, obeying commands and orientation were compared between the two groups. Haemodynamics, depth of anaesthesia, the plasma anticonvulsant levels and the incidence of seizures were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 36 patients were studied, of which 19 received regular dose and 17 received an additional dose. There was no significant difference in recovery time between the two groups. Subgroup analysis was performed for phenytoin and sodium valproate. There was a clinically significant delay in recovery in patients who received an additional phenytoin compared to those who received regular dose (time to obey commands >15 min and orientation time >1hour) but, it was not statistically significant. Administration of an additional dose of valproate did not prolong the recovery time.
conclusionAn additional dose of sodium valproate did not cause a delay in recovery both, clinically and statistically. However, the administration of an additional dose of phenytoin caused a clinically significant delay in recovery but was not statistically significant.
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.