Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34447851›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2021

Comparing the Effect of Neostigmine and Metoclopramide on Gastric Residual Volume of Mechanically Ventilated Patients in Intensive Care Unit: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Alireza Rahat-Dahmardeh, Sara Saneie-Moghadam, Masoum Khosh-Fetrat

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of enteral prucaloprideFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alireza Rahat-DahmardehDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5705-6481
Sara Saneie-MoghadamDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-9179
Masoum Khosh-FetratDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Khatamolanbia Hospital, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0346-9114
Zahedan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe gastric residual volume (GRV) monitoring in patients with mechanical ventilation (MV) is a common and important challenge. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of neostigmine and metoclopramide on GRV among MV patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

methodsIn a double-blind randomized clinical trial, a total of 200 mechanically ventilated ICU patients with GRV > 120 ml (6 hours after the last gavage) were randomly assigned into two groups (A and B) with 100 patients in each group. Patients in groups A and B received intravenous infusion of neostigmine at a dose of 2.5 mg/100 ml normal saline and metoclopramide at a dose of 10 mg/100 ml normal saline, within 30 minutes, respectively. GRV was evaluated 5 times for each patient, once before the intervention and 4 times (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours) after the intervention. In addition, demographic characteristics including age and gender, as well as severity illness based on the sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA), were initially recorded for all patients.

resultsAfter adjusting of demographic and clinical characteristics (age, gender, and SOFA score), the generalized estimating equation (GEE) model revealed that neostigmine treatment increased odds of GRV improvement compared to the metoclopramide group (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.60-3.76,

conclusionAccording to the results, although neostigmine treatment significantly improved GRV in more patients in less time, within 12 hours of treatment, all patients in both groups had complete recovery. Considering that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of side effects, it seems that both drugs are effective in improving the GRV of ICU patients.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsCritical IllnessDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGastric EmptyingHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMetoclopramideMiddle AgedNeostigmineParasympathomimeticsRespiration, ArtificialAntiemeticsMetoclopramideNeostigmineParasympathomimetics

Identifiers

PMID34447851
PMCPMC8384548
OpenAlexW3194821961

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.