ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Impact of intraoperative intravenous magnesium on spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06975072 (Pharmacokinetics and Impact of Magnesium Sulfate on Neuromonitoring in Spinal Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Pharmacokinetics and Impact of Magnesium Sulfate on Neuromonitoring in Spinal Surgery
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement of occipital neuralgia by pulsed radiofrequency of the greater occipital nerve combined with local magnesium sulfate injection: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Magnesium sulfate pharmacology for maternal and critical-care indications: mechanisms, pharmacokinetics, and the therapeutic window.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Opioid-free anaesthesia as a valuable alternative to opioid-based practices: evidence and future challenges.Pain management · 2025Review
- Pharmacological Efficacy of Intravenous Magnesium in Attenuating Remifentanil-Induced Postoperative Hyperalgesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analgesia considerations in orthopaedic surgery: the role of magnesium sulfate infusions.SICOT-J · 2025Article
- Optimizing patient-controlled analgesia: a narrative review based on a single center audit process.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness and safety of intraoperative intravenous magnesium (IIM) on spine surgery remain uncertain, as recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of IIM on spine surgery.
methodsA literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrial.gov and Google Scholar on July 12th 2021, and reference lists were examined. We selected RCTs comparing the effects of IIM with placebo treatment on spine surgery. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confident interval (CI) under a random-effect model. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score was applied to assess the quality of each included trial. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting each included study one by one from the pooled analysis. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021266170.
findingsFourteen trials of 781 participants were included. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h (SMD: -1·61 mg, 95% CI: -2·63 to -0·58) and intraoperative remifentanil requirement (SMD: -2·09 ug/h, 95% CI: -3·38 to -0·81). High-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (RR: 0·43, 95% CI: 0·26 to 0·71). Besides, moderate-quality evidence suggested that recovery orientation time in the IIM group is longer than control group (SMD: 1·13 min, 95% CI: 0·83 to 1·43).
interpretationIIM as adjuvant analgesics showed overall benefits on spine surgery in terms of reducing analgesic requirement and postoperative nausea and vomiting; however, potential risks of IIM, such as delayed anesthetic awakening, should not be ignored. Future evidence will inform the optimal strategy of IIM administration for patients undergoing spine surgery.
fundingThis study was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Grant No :7212117).
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.