Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33251530›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2020

Cerebrovascular Response to Propofol, Fentanyl, and Midazolam in Moderate/Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature.

Logan Froese, Joshua Dian, Carleen Batson, Alwyn Gomez, Bertram Unger, Frederick A Zeiler

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Logan FroeseBiomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Joshua DianSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Carleen BatsonDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Science, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Alwyn GomezSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Bertram UngerSection of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Frederick A ZeilerBiomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravenous propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam are utilized commonly in critical care for metabolic suppression and anesthesia. The impact of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam on cerebrovasculature and cerebral blood flow (CBF) is unclear in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and may carry important implications, as care is shifting to focus on cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring/directed therapies. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review of the literature on the cerebrovascular/CBF effects of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam in human patients with moderate/severe TBI and animal models with TBI. A search of MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 2020 was performed. All articles were included pertaining to the administration of propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam, in which the impact on CBF/cerebral vasculature was recorded. We identified 14 studies: 8 that evaluated propofol, 5 that evaluated fentanyl, and 2 that evaluated midazolam. All studies suffered from significant limitations, including: small sample size, and heterogeneous design and measurement techniques. In general, there was no significant change seen in CBF/cerebrovascular response to administration of propofol, fentanyl, or midazolam during experiments where PCO

Indexed as

brain injurycerebral blood flowcerebrovascular responsefentanylmidazolampropofol

Identifiers

PMID33251530
PMCPMC7685293
OpenAlexW3094572207

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.