ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
A randomized double-blinded study assessing the effect of different doses of transnasal dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of ropivacaine for a caudal block.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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.
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
Background: Perineural administration of dexmedetomidine (PN-DEX) can enhance the efficacy of local anesthetics used in regional nerve blocks while decreasing the median effective concentration (EC50) of these anesthetics. Intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine (IN-DEX) is more accessible for sedation during regional anesthesia because of its non-invasive systemic administration and demonstrates synergism with local anesthetic. However, it remains unclear whether IN-DEX affects the EC50 of local anesthetics used in caudal blocks. Methods: This study was a prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients scheduled to undergo elective hemorrhoidectomy were included and divided into three groups. Furthermore, 0.01 mL/kg of normal saline and 1 μg/kg and 2 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine were dripped into both nostrils of the patients in groups IN-NS, IN-DEX1, and IN-DEX2, respectively. These were administered 15 min before the caudal block. The initial concentration of ropivacaine was set at 0.4%, which was then varied by 0.025% using the up-and-down sequential allocation method. Vital signs, instances of hypotension and bradycardia with treatment, and other adverse reactions were recorded and compared. Results: The EC50 values of ropivacaine were 0.275% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.254-0.296%) in group IN-NS, 0.257% (95% CI, 0.238-0.276%) in group IN-DEX1, and 0.216% (95% CI, 0.195-0.236%) in group IN-DEX2. The EC95 values of ropivacaine were 0.315% (95% CI, 0.295-0.370%) in group IN-NS, 0.297% (95% CI, 0.278-0.351%) in group IN-DEX1, and 0.256% (95% CI, 0.236-0.310%) in group IN-DEX2. Compared to group IN-NS, the EC50 value of ropivacaine in IN-DEX2 was significantly decreased by 21.4% ( Conclusion: IN-DEX decreased the EC50 of ropivacaine for the caudal block, and there was a specific dose-dependent effect for IN-DEX. The side effects were similar across all groups.
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.