ArticleCureus2025
Dexmedetomidine Versus Nalbuphine as Adjuvants to 0.5% Ropivacaine in Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDexmedetomidine and nalbuphine are used as adjuvants to local anesthetics in regional anesthesia. This study aims to compare their efficacy and safety in supraclavicular brachial plexus block.
methodsIn this prospective, double-blind randomized study, 60 patients undergoing upper limb surgery were divided into two groups. Group D received ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine, and Group N received ropivacaine with nalbuphine. Parameters such as onset and duration of sensory and motor block, sedation, rescue analgesia requirement, hemodynamic variables and side effects were recorded.
resultsGroup D demonstrated significantly faster onset and prolonged duration of sensory and motor blocks. Time to first rescue analgesia was significantly longer and the number of rescue doses was fewer in Group D. Sedation scores were higher in the early postoperative period in Group D. Bradycardia and hypotension were more frequent in Group D, while Group N exhibited stable hemodynamics but experienced higher incidence of nausea and pruritus compared to Group D.
conclusionDexmedetomidine provides superior block characteristics and prolonged analgesia but with more hemodynamic effects. Nalbuphine is safer hemodynamically but with more nausea and pruritus.
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.