ArticleJournal of anesthesia2023
Effects of anesthetics on nociceptive sensory evoked potentials by intraepidermal noxious electrical stimulation of A-δ fibers.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
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
purposeGeneration of nociceptive sensory evoked potentials (NEPs) by selective stimulation of nociceptive intraepidermal nerve fibers is a simple technique which could be used as intraoperative nociception monitor. We evaluated the effects of remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane on NEPs by this technique.
methodsPatients undergoing general anesthesia were assigned to groups in two studies. A-δ fiber selective NEPs were recorded. Study 1: NEPs were recorded at control, under anesthetics administration: remifentanil at an effect-site concentration (Ce) of 1.0 ng/mL (n = 10), propofol at Ce of 0.5 µg/mL (n = 10), or sevoflurane at 0.2 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) (n = 10), and recovery from the anesthetics. Study 2: NEPs were recorded at control and under administration of higher dose anesthetics: propofol at Ce of 0.5 and 1.0 µg/mL (n = 10) or sevoflurane at 0.2 and 0.5 MAC (n = 10). A P-value < 0.016 was considered statistically significant in multiple analyses.
resultsStudy 1: Remifentanil at Ce of 1.0 ng/mL significantly suppressed the amplitude of NEPs (mean amplitude (standard deviation) of control vs. remifentanil administration: 16.8 µV (3.8) vs. 10.1 µV (2.5), P < 0.001). Propofol and sevoflurane did not suppress the amplitude significantly. Study 2: Propofol at Ce of 0.5 and 1.0 µg/mL and sevoflurane at 0.2 and 0.5 MAC did not suppress the amplitude significantly.
conclusionThe amplitude of A-δ fiber selective NEPs was suppressed by remifentanil but not propofol or sevoflurane. NEPs with intraepidermal electrical stimulation can assess the analgesic effect of anesthetics. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: UMIN000038214 REGISTRY URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000043328.
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.