ArticleTuberkuloz ve toraks2024
Bispectral index monitoring: Optimizing anesthesia in rigid bronchoscopy.
Article in Tuberkuloz ve toraks, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates the application of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring in rigid bronchoscopy to enhance anesthetic delivery and patient outcomes, a topic that remains underexplored. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 155 patients undergoing elective rigid bronchoscopy under general anesthesia was conducted. Patients were divided into BIS-monitored and conventional anesthesia groups. Inclusion criteria were adults aged over 18 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV. Result: No significant demographic differences were found between the groups. The BIS group showed significant reductions in propofol usage (231.40 ± 74.63 mg vs. 190.19 ± 91.83 mg, p= 0.003) and prednol dosage (94.27 ± 42.56 mg vs. 79.71 ± 18.97 mg, p= 0.020). Remifentanil administration approached statistical significance (56.99 ± 34.69 mcg vs. 45.36 ± 36.75 mcg, p= 0.055). Conclusions: No significant demographic differences were found between the groups. The BIS group showed significant reductions in propofol usage (231.40 ± 74.63 mg vs. 190.19 ± 91.83 mg, p= 0.003) and prednol dosage (94.27 ± 42.56 mg vs. 79.71 ± 18.97 mg, p= 0.020). Remifentanil administration approached statistical significance (56.99 ± 34.69 mcg vs. 45.36 ± 36.75 mcg, p= 0.055).
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.