SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Effects of hypercapnia versus normocapnia during general anesthesia on outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Power and the Association with Postoperative Impaired Oxygenation and Pulmonary Complications in Orthopedic Patients: Post Hoc Analysis of a Cluster Factorial Randomized Trial.Anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between Remimazolam and Propofol in Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring in children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy: a prospective blinded observational study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Observational
- Carbon dioxide and MAPK signalling: towards therapy for inflammation.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2023Review
- Article
- How to identify a high-risk surgical patient?Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of mild changes in CO
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of parallel-arm randomised controlled trials comparing hypercapnia versus normocapnia in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia. In July 2018 and September 2019 we searched "CENTRAL‿, "MEDLINE‿, and "Embase‿, checked reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional references to trials. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and completed a "Risk of bias‿ assessment for all included studies.
resultsOur search identified 297 records after abstract screening 30 full-text papers remained for further examination. Ten publications met our inclusion criteria and were used for narrative description of this systematic review. Three studies were eligible for the meta-analysis normocapnia versus hypercapnia with the outcomes: time to extubation and adverse events. On average, time to extubation was significantly reduced in the hypercapnia group with a mean difference 3.78 (95% CI 0.85 to 6.71). No difference was found regarding adverse events.
conclusionsThe findings of our study do not enable us to produce evidence of a positive influence of increased CO
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.