Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2021
Effects of different thermal insulation methods on the nasopharyngeal temperature in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of hospital and payer costs of care: aggressive warming versus routine warming in abdominal major surgery.Frontiers in public health · 2023Trial
- Influence of endotracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway for general anesthesia on perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study explored the comparison of the thermal insulation effect of incubator to infusion thermometer in laparoscopic hysterectomy.
methodsWe assigned 75 patients enrolled in the study randomly to three groups: Group A: Used warming blanket; group B: Used warming blanket and infusion thermometer; group C: Used warming blanket and incubator. The nasopharyngeal temperature at different time points during the operation served as the primary outcome.
resultsThe nasopharyngeal temperature of the infusion heating group was significantly higher than that of the incubator group 60 min from the beginning of surgery (T3): 36.10 ± 0.20 vs 35.81 ± 0.20 (P<0.001)90 min from the beginning of surgery (T4): 36.35 ± 0.20 vs 35.85 ± 0.17 (P<0.001). Besides, the nasopharyngeal temperature of the incubator group was significantly higher compared to that of the control group 60 min from the beginning of surgery (T3): 35.81 ± 0.20 vs 35.62 ± 0.18 (P<0.001); 90 min from the beginning of surgery (T4): 35.85 ± 0.17 vs 35.60 ± 0.17 (P<0.001). Regarding the wake-up time, that of the control group was significantly higher compared to the infusion heating group: 24 ± 4 vs 21 ± 4 (P = 0.004) and the incubator group: 24 ± 4 vs 22 ± 4 (P = 0.035).
conclusionWarming blanket (38 °C) combined infusion thermometer (37 °C) provides better perioperative thermal insulation. Hospitals without an infusion thermometer can opt for an incubator as a substitute.
trial registrationThis trial was registered with ChiCTR2000039162 , 20 October 2020.
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.