Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
The effects of end-tidal controlled low-flow anesthesia on anesthetic agent consumption in elective surgeries: randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Automated end-tidal control versus manual regulation in low-flow volatile anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Utilization and Estimation of Environmental Impact of End-Tidal Control in a Multisite Academic Health System: A Retrospective Observational Cross-Sectional Study.A&A practice · 2026Observational
- Anaesthetic gas emissions in a tertiary hospital in Pakistan: Behavioural drivers versus technological solutions.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe environmental impact and cost of volatile anesthetics are significant concerns in modern anesthesia. Automated end-tidal control systems aim to optimize anesthetic delivery by reducing waste and improving efficiency. This study compared the effectiveness of end-tidal controlled (EtControl) low-flow anesthesia to manually controlled (MC) low-flow anesthesia in elective surgeries.
designA randomized controlled trial.
methodsThis study was conducted with 132 ASA Class I-II patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to the EtControl (n = 66) or MC (n = 66) groups. The primary outcomes included anesthetic agent consumption (mL).
findingsAnesthetic consumption was similar between the EtControl group (17.9 ± 2.63 mL) and the MC group (18.45 ± 2.44 mL) (p = 0.07). The rate of anesthetic consumption per minute was also comparable (0.120 mL/min vs. 0.127 mL/min; p = 0.514).
conclusionsEtControl and MC methods provide comparable safety and sevoflurane consumption during low-flow anesthesia. However, EtControl reduces manual adjustments, enhancing workflow efficiency and cost-effectiveness, with potential implications for reducing environmental impact.
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.