Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Determination of Median Effective Concentration (EC
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique offers a promising option for managing labor pain. While dexmedetomidine has proven clinically efficacious in labor pain, its optimal concentration in DPE technique remains underexplored. This trial was designed to identify the ideal adjuvant concentration of dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine in the DPE technique for labor analgesia. Methods: Parturients were randomly allocated to six groups receiving different concentrations of dexmedetomidine (0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 μg/mL). In each group, ropivacaine was initiated at 0.1% concentration. Effective analgesia was defined as visual analog scale scores ≤ 3 during two consecutive uterine contractions within 30 minutes; if achieved, the ropivacaine concentration for subsequent parturients was reduced by 0.01%, otherwise increased by 0.01%. Results: The median effective concentrations of ropivacaine at dexmedetomidine concentrations of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 μg/mL were 0.042% (95% CI: 0.035%-0.049%), 0.036% (95% CI: 0.030%-0.043%), and 0.037% (95% CI: 0.030%-0.044%), which were lower than those at 0, 0.1, and 0.2 μg/mL (0.079% [95% CI: 0.071%-0.088%], 0.070% [95% CI: 0.062%-0.078%], and 0.059% [95% CI: 0.053%-0.066%]). Comparisons between the three highest dexmedetomidine doses showed no significant differences. Scores on the Ramsay Sedation Scale were significantly elevated in the three highest concentration groups compared to the 0 and 0.1 µg/mL groups. Additionally, the scores for the 0.3 and 0.5 µg/mL groups exceeded that of the 0.2 µg/mL group. Comparisons involving the 0.2 µg/mL group versus the 0.4 µg/mL group, as well as those among the three highest concentration groups, all showed no statistical difference. Conclusion: For labor analgesia using the DPE technique, 0.3 µg/mL dexmedetomidine is the optimal adjuvant concentration to ropivacaine, balancing analgesic efficacy and safety. Higher concentrations do not enhance analgesia but may increase the risk of sedation.
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.