Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32864640›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020

Clonidine and Morphine as Adjuvants for Caudal Anaesthesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Shilpa Goyal, Ankur Sharma, Devalina Goswami, Nikhil Kothari, Amit Goyal, Varuna Vyas, Richard Kirubakaran, Ranjit Sahu, Surjit Singh

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Comparative Study of the Antiemetic Effects of αInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shilpa GoyalDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8983-0953
Ankur SharmaDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Anaesthesia) All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9339-6988
Devalina GoswamiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5353-3383
Nikhil KothariDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9829-905X
Amit GoyalDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-7541
Varuna VyasDepartment of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1927-0487
Richard KirubakaranDepartment of Biostatistics, (South Asian Cochrane Centre), Christian Medical College Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5799-0303
Ranjit SahuDepartment of Plastic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2321-6798
Surjit SinghDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rajasthan, Jodhpur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8990-3235
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of morphine vs. clonidine use as adjuvants in caudal anaesthesia. We are specifically focused on analgesic and side effect profiles.

methodsWe searched databases and trial registration sites and include here randomised controlled trials that compare the analgesic effects of caudal clonidine vs. morphine as adjuvants on postoperative pain. The risk ratio for evaluating pain scores, the need for rescue analgesia and all adverse effects were assessed. The i2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We also assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's Collaboration tool. The quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

resultsFour randomised controlled trials (including 166 patients) that evaluated the use of clonidine vs. morphine as adjuvants in caudal block were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for postoperative analgesia revealed no statistically significant differences between the clonidine group compared to morphine group (MD=2.90; 95% CI 4.05 to 9.85; i2 93%). Significantly less postoperative nausea and vomiting were reported among the patients that received clonidine vs. those that were treated with morphine (RR 0.57, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.90, i2 26%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in assessments that included urinary retention, pain scores or need for rescue analgesia at 24 hours.

conclusionClonidine is just as effective as morphine when used an adjuvant to local anaesthetic for caudal block, and has a more desirable side effect profile, particularly with respect to postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Indexed as

Anaesthesiaanalgesiacaudalchildrenclonidinemorphine

Identifiers

PMID32864640
PMCPMC7434346
OpenAlexW3011156949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.