ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine for Bronchoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Remimazolam compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam for adult sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in adult patients undergoing bronchoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Comparison of older and newer sedation agents in bronchoscopy.World journal of methodology · 2026Review
- Validity of Bronchoscopist Assessment of Patient Discomfort During Flexible Bronchoscopy: An Observational Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Meta-analysis of the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.American journal of clinical and experimental immunology · 2025Article
- Anesthesia for Bronchoscopy-An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine in combination with lidocaine aerosol inhalation in awake direct laryngoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Anesthetic sedatives are widely used for bronchoscopy, and controversy surrounds the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in bronchoscopy through a systematic review. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for a randomized controlled study of dexmedetomidine (Group D) or other sedative drugs (Group C) for bronchoscopy. Data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias analysis were performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis requirements. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. (3) Results: Nine studies were included, with a total of 765 cases. Compared to Group C, the incidence of hypoxemia (OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.25, 0.64)
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.