Trial reportScientific reports2026
The effect of deep extubation on the emergence agitation in pediatric patients undergoing obstructive sleep apnea syndrome surgery: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergence agitation (EA) is a common complication during recovery from pediatric anesthesia, particularly in children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) undergoing tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A). This study aimed to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-assisted deep extubation and awake extubation strategies on the incidence of EA in this high-risk population. In this prospective randomized trial, 100 children aged 3–10 years scheduled for T&A were allocated to either a dexmedetomidine-assisted deep extubation group (n = 50) or an awake extubation group (n = 50). The primary outcome was the incidence of EA, assessed using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale with a diagnostic threshold > 10. Secondary outcomes included extubation time and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. The dexmedetomidine-assisted deep extubation group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of EA compared to the awake extubation group (21.3% vs. 54%; p = 0.002; relative risk [95% confidence interval] = 0.394 [0.215–0.722]; NNT [number needed to treat] = 3.06). Extubation time was also significantly shorter in the deep extubation group (5.5 ± 2.02 vs. 11.7 ± 2.39 min; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in PACU length of stay between the two groups (60.4 ± 2.92 vs. 60.6 ± 3.14 min; p = 0.78). In this single-center randomized controlled trial, dexmedetomidine-assisted deep extubation was associated with a reduced incidence of EA and a shorter extubation time, without prolonging PACU stay or increasing observed adverse events.Trial registration: Chictr.org.cn; Identifier: ChiCTR2300075947; registered 20 September 2023.
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.