Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39176126›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024

Comparison of propofol versus dexmedetomidine sedation for awake C-MAC

Gunjan Vishnoi, Shagun B Shah, Rajiv Chawla, Manoj Bhardwaj, Anil Patel, Jenna Arora

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Gunjan VishnoiDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4004-7631
Shagun B ShahDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9178-7958
Rajiv ChawlaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2571-8759
Manoj BhardwajDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8107-484X
Anil PatelDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0835-1241
Jenna AroraDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6306-6197

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Awake intubation is the preferred method for securing difficult airways. We compared intravenous (IV) propofol and dexmedetomidine for C-MAC Methods: This randomised study included 60 patients with difficult airway (El-Ganzouri Score 4-9). After adequate airway preparation with IV midazolam 0.03 mg/kg and IV fentanyl 1 µg/kg, in Group P, propofol was infused at 250 µg/kg Results: The intubation score was significantly higher in Group D versus Group P ( Conclusion: Successful awake C-MAC

Indexed as

Conscious sedationdexmedetomidineEl-Ganzouri scoreintubation scorepercentage of glottis opening scorespropofoltracheal intubationvocal cords

Identifiers

PMID39176126
PMCPMC11338376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.