Trial reportComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Restoration Algorithm-Based Ultrasound Image in Evaluating the Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Patients with Neurological Disorder Anesthetized by Sevoflurane.
Trial report in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: Restoration Algorithm-Based Ultrasound Image in Evaluating the Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Patients with Neurological Disorder Anesthetized by Sevoflurane.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-13Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study focused on the application value of ultrasound images processed by restoration algorithm in evaluating the effect of dexmedetomidine in preventing neurological disorder in patients undergoing sevoflurane anesthesia. 90 patients undergoing tonsillectomy anesthesia were randomly divided into normal saline group, propofol group, and dexmedetomidine group. The ultrasound images were processed by restoration algorithm, and during the postoperative recovery period, ultrasound images were used to evaluate. The results showed that the original ultrasonic image was fuzzy and contained interference noise, and that the image optimized by restoration algorithm was clear, without excess noise, and the image quality was significantly improved. In the dexmedetomidine group, the extubation time was 10.6 ± 2.3 minutes, the recovery time was 8.4 ± 2.2 minutes, the average pain score during the recovery period was 2.6 ± 0.7, and the average agitation score was 7.2 ± 2.4. Of 30 patients, there were 13 cases with vertigo and 1 case with nausea and vomiting. The vascular ultrasound imaging showed that, in the dexmedetomidine group, the peak systolic velocities (PSV) of the bilateral vertebral arteries during the recovery period were 67.7 ± 14.3 and 67.9 ± 15.2 cm/s, respectively; the end-diastolic velocities (EDV) of the bilateral vertebral arteries were 27.8 ± 6.7 and 24.69 ± 5.9 cm/s, respectively; the PSV in bilateral internal carotid artery systolic peak velocities were 67.2 ± 13.9 and 67.8 ± 12.7 cm/s, respectively; the EDV in bilateral internal carotid arteries were 27.7 ± 5.3 and 26.9 ± 4.9 cm/s, respectively; bilateral vertebral artery resistance indexes (RIs) were 0.6 ± 0.02 and 0.71 ± 0.08, respectively; the bilateral internal carotid artery RIs were 0.57 ± 0.04 and 0.58 ± 0.06, respectively, all better than the normal saline group (12.1 ± 2.5 minutes, 10.1 ± 2.3 minutes, 3.9 ± 0.6, 10.6 ± 3.7, 15 cases, 11 cases, 81.5 ± 13.6, 80.7 ± 11.6 cm/s, 29.3 ± 6.8, 28.9 ± 6.7 cm/s, 74.3 ± 10.2, 73.9 ± 12.5 cm/s, 29.1 ± 4.3, 29 ± 4.5 cm/s, 0.84 ± 0.06, 0.83 ± 0.05, 0.8 ± 0.04, and 0.81 ± 0.05) and the propofol group (11.4 ± 2.1 minutes, 9.0 ± 2.1 minutes, 3.4 ± 0.8, 8.5 ± 2.3, 12 cases, 9 cases, 72.5 ± 12.9, 73.4 ± 11.8 cm/s, 28.6 ± 5.4, 26.5 ± 5.1 cm/s, 72.1 ± 11.4, 73.5 ± 10.6 cm/s, 28.8 ± 5.6, 27.3 ± 4.7 cm/s, 0.78 ± 0.07, 0.82 ± 0.06, 0.76 ± 0.03, and 0.78 ± 0.05), and the differences were statistically significant (
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.