Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine (1.0 mg/Kg) on Propofol ED50 and ED95 for Successful Double-Lumen Laryngeal Mask Airway Placement in Hysteroscopy Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: It has been demonstrated that administration of intravenous lidocaine promotes laryngeal mask airway (LMA) placement. This research aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine at a dosage of 1.0 mg/kg on the 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95) of propofol required for the successful placement of a double-lumen LMA during propofol-fentanyl-based anesthesia in patients undergoing hysteroscopy. Patients and Methods: Eighty patients who underwent hysteroscopy were screened and randomly enrolled in either lidocaine group (group L, n=40) or the saline group (group S, n=40). The propofol induction dose per patient was established via an up-and-down sequential method. Under the guidance of bispectral index (BIS) value monitoring, the propofol doses required for the successful placement of a double-lumen LMA in 50% and 95% of the patients in the two groups (ED50 and ED95) were compared. The total propofol induction dose, awakening duration, and adverse outcomes were documented and analyzed. Results: The propofol's ED50 was notably lower in the L group than in the S group (1.15±0.27 mg/kg versus 1.83±0.26 mg/kg; p<0.05, Cohen's d=2.56). The ED95 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was 2.04 (1.23-2.85) mg/kg in the L group and 2.64 (1.95-3.33) mg/kg in the S group, with a small effect size for the difference (Cohen's d=0.25). The total propofol induction dose in the L group was lower than that in the S group (p<0.05). There existed no variations in terms of awakening duration or incidence of adverse events. Conclusion: In patients who underwent hysteroscopy, post-propofol intravenous lidocaine at 1.0 mg/kg markedly reduced the propofol's ED50 in propofol-fentanyl-based anesthesia for successful placement of a double-lumen LMA without significant adverse reactions.
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.