Trial reportBMJ open2023
Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05346588 (Feasibility Study for the Trajectories of Recovery After Intravenous Propofol Versus Inhaled VolatilE Anesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Feasibility Study for the Trajectories of Recovery After Intravenous Propofol Versus Inhaled VolatilE Anesthesia (THRIVE) Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility Pilot Trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous Propofol versus Inhaled Volatile Anesthesia (THRIVE) Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Patients' Perspectives and Experiences of Participating in Anesthesia Research: A Qualitative Study.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Article
- Observational
- Propofol TIVA vs. inhalational anesthesia for spine surgery: in‑hospital mortality and postoperative complications in a nationwide Korean cohort.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Anesthesiology Clinical Trial Networks in the United States: A Report From the Anesthesia Research Council.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2025Article
- Anesthesiology Clinical Trial Networks in the United States: A Report from the Anesthesia Research Council.Anesthesiology · 2025Article
- A survey of surgical patients' perspectives and preferences towards general anesthesia techniques and shared-decision making.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMillions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346588.
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.