Trial reportBMC pediatrics2025
Comparative effects of glycopyrrolate vs. atropine combined with neostigmine on heart rate dynamics and safety outcomes in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 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.
- Comparison of the Effects of Glycopyrrolate and Atropine on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeostigmine is a widely used muscle relaxant antagonist that requires combination with anticholinergic agents like atropine to mitigate its muscarinic effects. Glycopyrrolate exerts less influence on cardiac conduction than atropine, making it a preferable option. However, clinical research on its pediatric use is limited. This study aims to compare the effects of glycopyrrolate and atropine, in combination with neostigmine, on heart rate and adverse events in pediatric patients.
methodsChildren undergoing penile flap surgery under general anesthesia combined with a caudal block were randomly assigned to either the glycopyrrolate group (Group G, n = 100) or the atropine group (Group A, n = 100). Postoperatively, patients in Group G received glycopyrrolate (8 µg/kg) and neostigmine (40 µg/kg), while those in Group A received atropine (20 µg/kg) and neostigmine (40 µg/kg) to reverse neuromuscular blockade. The baseline heart rate was defined as the heart rate measured before administering the trial drug, with heart rates recorded every minute thereafter, along with any adverse events noted within 24 h post-operation.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in age, surgery duration, or baseline heart rates between the two groups (p > 0.05). Heart rate changes within 15 min post-administration were less pronounced in the glycopyrrolate group compared to the atropine group (p < 0.05), indicating reduced fluctuation from baseline. Additionally, the area under the curve (AUC) for heart rate changes in the first 15 min post-administration was lower in the glycopyrrolate group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared to atropine, the combination of glycopyrrolate and neostigmine results in less fluctuation in heart rate but a higher incidence of dry mouth, with no significant differences in other complications. Therefore, glycopyrrolate may be preferred in scenarios where hemodynamic stability is prioritized, considering its higher risk of dry mouth.
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.