Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323870›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Comparison of hemodynamic effects of propofol or alfaxalone during induction in dogs.

Diego Sarotti, Paolo Franci, Stefano Oricco, Roberto Rabozzi, Elena Lardone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Diego SarottiCentro Veterinario Fossanese, Cuneo, Italy.
Paolo FranciDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Stefano OriccoCentro Veterinario Imperiese, Imperia, Italy.
Roberto RabozziPoliclinico Veterinario Roma Sud, Rome, Italy.
Elena LardoneDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This randomized prospective clinical study aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of propofol and alfaxalone for the induction of anesthesia in dogs. Thirty-one healthy dogs undergoing various procedures in a private referral center were premedicated with intramuscular acepromazine (0.015 mg/kg) and methadone (0.15 mg/kg). They then received 5 mg/kg of propofol over 30 s for induction, followed by a maintenance dose of 25 mg/kg/h (Group P), or 2 mg/kg of alfaxalone over 30 s for induction, followed by a continuous rate infusion of 10 mg/kg/h (Group A). Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and the velocity time integral (VTI) of the aortic blood flow using transthoracic echocardiography were measured before anesthetic induction and every 15 s for 180 s. Dogs not adequately anaesthetized for intubation were excluded from the hemodynamic evaluation. Events of hypotension (any MAP value lower than 60 mmHg) were also recorded. Statistical analyses utilized ANOVA for repeated measures, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-tests, or Wilcoxon signed rank-test as appropriate. Significance was set at

Indexed as

alfaxaloneanesthesiadoghemodynamic variationpropofol

Identifiers

PMID39323870
PMCPMC11422344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.