Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40636200›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2025

Comparison of hyperbaric ropivacaine with hyperbaric bupivacaine in subarachnoid block.

Anshumali Anshumali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Anshumali AnshumaliDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of hyperbaric ropivacaine with hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for lower abdominal surgeries is of interest. Both agents produced reliable sensory and motor blocks; however, ropivacaine exhibited a slower onset, a less extensive sensory block and a faster regression compared to bupivacaine. The duration of the motor block was significantly shorter with ropivacaine. Hemodynamic changes and side effects were similar in both groups. Ropivacaine's favorable recovery profile, including quicker micturition, suggests its potential for daycare surgery. However, the non-availability of a standard densitometer and the need for aseptic preparation of hyperbaric ropivacaine is the limitation.

Indexed as

Bupivacainehemodynamicsropivacainesensory blockspinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID40636200
PMCPMC12236568

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.