Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023998›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2023

Dexmedetomidine Versus Clonidine as Additives for Spinal Anesthesia: A Comparative Study.

Murali Manoj Manoharan, Manohar Paneer, Karthikeyan Elavarasan, Kameshwaran Kannappan Punniyakoti

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A Narrative Review on Multimodal Spinal Anesthesia: Old Technique and New Use.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Murali Manoj ManoharanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5109-7610
Manohar PaneerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8042-5786
Karthikeyan ElavarasanDepartment of Community Medicine, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8555-8278
Kameshwaran Kannappan PunniyakotiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-6473
Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pain management is vital to improve patient care. Successful postoperative pain relief is currently achieved only through NSAIDs and narcotics. Objectives: We compared dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives to hyperbaric levobupivicaine 0.5% for the sub-arachnoid block (spinal anesthesia) concerning the onset time, duration of the block, hemodynamic changes, level of sedation intraoperatively and postoperatively and time taken for the first postoperative analgesic request and frequency. Methods: This prospective, double-blind study enrolled 60 patients who underwent lower abdominal surgeries and were eligible for a sub-arachnoid block. They were allocated randomly to one of the two groups. Group D received intrathecal dexmedetomidine 5 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Group C received intrathecal clonidine 50 µg and 0.5% hyperbaric levobupivicaine 15 mg. Results: Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a longer duration of the block (2-segment regression: 135 ± 15 min vs. 130 ± 20 min, S1 segment regression: 305 ± 50.4 min vs. 290 ± 47.2 min, Bromage 0: 285 ± 60 min vs. 280 ± 45 min), delayed first rescue analgesia request (700 ± 160 min vs. 506 ± 112 min), reduced frequency of rescue analgesics (1 vs. 2), and desired level of sedation (1.3 ± 0.46 vs. 0.4 ± 0.01) when compared to those receiving clonidine. There were insignificant differences between the groups in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, such as minimal bradycardia and minimal hypotension. Though dexmedetomidine had an early onset, there was no statistically significant difference compared to clonidine. Conclusions: Comparing dexmedetomidine and clonidine as additives in the sub-arachnoid block, the group who received dexmedetomidine had similar onset, prolonged duration of blockade, delayed first rescue analgesia demand, reduced frequency of analgesics, and desired sedation with similar minimal hemodynamic changes such as bradycardia and hypotension.

Indexed as

ClonidineDexmedetomidineLevel of SedationPostoperative AnalgesiaSub-arachnoid Block

Identifiers

PMID38023998
PMCPMC10664160
OpenAlexW4385632352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.