ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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 and Aims: The opioid receptor mu receptor 1( Material and Methods: The present prospective observational study was conducted following IEC approval, prospective CTRI registration, and written informed consent. Patients of ASA PS I/II undergoing femur fracture surgery under subarachnoid block were included. Fifty patients of ASA I and II, aged 18-60 years, of either sex, undergoing isolated femur fracture surgery and receiving IV tramadol postoperatively were included. Two milliliters venous sample was withdrawn for gene polymorphism study preoperatively. Incidence of PONV and comparison of PONV score, total rescue antiemetic consumption, postoperative NRS pain score, and total analgesic consumption were compared between different genotypes in the first 24 h postoperatively. Results: The prevalence of the wild homozygous allele (AA) was 56%, and mutant-G alleles, i.e., AG and GG, were 36% and 8%, respectively. PONV incidence was significantly higher in the AA allele than in mutant-G alleles i.e. 89% vs 7%; odd's ratio is 0.214 ( Conclusion: A significantly lower incidence of PONV and lower consumption of rescue antiemetics was observed among patients with mutant G alleles of
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.