ArticleCureus2025
Effectiveness and Safety of Low-Dose Propofol for the Treatment of Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of propofol compared to metoclopramide for the treatment of migraines in the emergency department (ED). Methodology We reviewed the health records of patients aged 16 years and older treated with propofol for migraine between 2014 and 2017 at a teaching hospital in Québec City. The local protocol consisted of administering propofol (20 mg) every 10 minutes as needed (up to six doses), vital signs before and after each dose, and continuous cardiac monitoring. The primary outcome measure was the mean reduction of pain following first-line therapy (propofol or metoclopramide). The secondary outcome measures were: (1) adjusted relative risks of requiring rescue medication after first-line therapy; and (2) the incidence of the following side effects associated with propofol administered as first- or second-line therapy: hypotension (systolic <90 mmHg or mean <65 mmHg), desaturation, excessive sedation, and arrhythmia. The cohorts were paired for gender, age, triage priority, and date of ED visit. Results Medical records of 34 patients treated with propofol and 58 patients treated with metoclopramide as first-line therapy were analyzed. Five patients in the metoclopramide group received propofol as rescue medication. Among those treated with propofol, 10 patients (29.4%) experienced pain relief, compared to 38 (66%) in the metoclopramide group (
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.