ReviewCureus2025
Enhancing Caudal Analgesia in Children: A Narrative Review of Clonidine and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuvants.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Caudal epidural analgesia is a common method of pediatric anesthesia for infraumbilical and lower limb operations. Despite being useful, the limited duration of action of local anesthetics by themselves necessitates the addition of adjuvants to prolong postoperative pain relief. Among them, clonidine and dexmedetomidine, both α2-adrenergic agonists, have become popular because of their analgesic-sedative effects in combination. This review discusses the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety, and comparison of dexmedetomidine and clonidine as adjuvants for pediatric caudal blocks. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were used in combination to compare their roles. The significant outcomes are quality and duration of analgesia, hemodynamic stability, sedation, and side effects. Both drugs significantly prolong the duration of caudal analgesia, reduce postoperative opioid consumption, and exhibit good safety profiles. Dexmedetomidine gives better pain relief and enhanced sedation due to its greater α2-receptor selectivity but also poses a higher risk for bradycardia and hypotension. Clonidine, though less potent, shows consistent effectiveness, is cost-efficient, and has a safer hemodynamic profile, making it especially suitable for outpatient procedures. Clonidine and dexmedetomidine are effective adjuvants for enhancing pediatric caudal analgesia. While dexmedetomidine is better for longer and more painful surgeries, clonidine offers a balanced option when quick recovery and stable blood pressure are priorities. Future large-scale studies and long-term neurodevelopmental safety research are necessary to optimize their clinical 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.