Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2025
Interaction between intubation and stress regarding hemodynamic and hormonal changes.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of video double-lumen tube for one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Short-term postoperative neurocognitive safety and recovery profiles of remimazolam tosilate combined with flumazenil vs. propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic variceal treatment: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of airway stress response and respiratory complications in adults undergoing general anesthesia with sevoflurane plus mivacurium chloride and positive pressure ventilation via laryngeal mask.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl to reduce hemodynamic and biochemical stress markers associated with endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia.
methodsWe performed a prospective randomized controlled study of 80 patients and 20 healthy controls at Assiut University from January to June 2024. The patients were allocated to two groups: Group D received dexmedetomidine and Group F received fentanyl. Blood samples were collected at four time points: T0 (baseline), T1 (2 minutes after induction of anesthesia), T2 (1 minute after intubation), and T3 (10 minutes post-intubation), for stress marker analysis.
resultsIntubation significantly increased stress markers in both groups compared to baseline. Group D showed significantly lower cortisol, norepinephrine, and lactate concentrations at T1, T2, and T3; and hemodynamic parameters at T2; whereas Group F demonstrated earlier post-operative recovery.
conclusionsBoth drugs increased stress markers, but dexmedetomidine more effectively reduced biochemical marker concentrations, suggesting better stress control, whereas fentanyl use led to quicker recovery. Dexmedetomidine is more effective at reducing intubation-induced stress, whereas fentanyl facilitates faster post-operative recovery.
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.