SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2025
Hypnotics as induction agents for general anesthesia in cesarean section patients: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Pharmacokinetic Simulation of Remifentanil Dosing at Different Effect-Site Targets During Target-Controlled Infusion for Cesarean Delivery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comment on "Comparison of analgesic modalities after cesarean section: a network meta-analysis and systematic review".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Simulation of Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion up to Time of Delivery in Cesarean Section: A Bench Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
background and purposeGeneral anesthesia is indicated in emergencies, contraindications, or patient requests. The induction agent to use is an important factor in general anesthesia. We aim to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol, ketamine, and thiopental sodium in terms of efficacy and safety profiles in women undergoing cesarean sections under general anesthesia.
methodsWe conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched the following databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochran Library, and Web of Science) up to 18-8-2024. We used a term for cesarian section, thiopental, ketamine, and propofol.
resultsThirty-six randomized controlled trials met our criteria and were included in our analysis with a total of 1945 patients. In (Thiopentone vs. Propofol) group, the use of thiopentone was associated with higher umbilical artery PH and longer recovery duration, although the certainty of evidence was low for both outcomes, while in the propofol group, the risk of having neonates with Apgar score less than 7 at one minute was higher, but the certainty of evidence was very low. In (Thiopentone vs. Ketamine) group, patients induced with thiopentone reported accidental awareness during general anesthesia (AAGA) more frequently and their neonates revealed higher umbilical vein PvO
conclusionOur findings suggest that propofol and thiopentone appear to be clinically comparable. Ketamine was favored over thiopentone for its lower risk of AAGA, while thiopentone was associated with a lower risk of Apgar scores < 7 at 1 and 5 min. Additional well-designed trials are needed to support our conclusions more firmly.
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.