ArticleThe Journal of veterinary medical science2025
Comparative evaluation of anesthetic effects of medetomidine-midazolam-butorphanol and medetomidine-remimazolam-butorphanol administered subcutaneously and intraperitoneally in C57BL/6J mice.
Article in The Journal of veterinary medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anesthesia management in experimental animals is essential for animal welfare and data reproducibility. In Japan, medetomidine-midazolam-butorphanol (MMB) is commonly used due to ketamine restrictions. We developed medetomidine-remimazolam-butorphanol (MRB) by replacing midazolam with remimazolam for faster metabolism and recovery. This study compared MMB and MRB administered intraperitoneally (i.p.) or subcutaneously (s.c.) in C57BL/6J mice of both sexes. Induction and recovery were assessed using immobilization, loss of righting reflex, and return of righting reflex. MRB i.p. produced the fastest induction and recovery with relatively low variability, suggesting potential utility for brief procedures. In contrast, s.c. administration resulted in consistent onset and recovery profiles for both agents, which may be advantageous for routine experimental use.
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.