Efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery: a meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is used as a local-anesthetics adjuvant in caudal block to prolong analgesia in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of the addition of caudal dexmedetomidine to local anesthetics (vs local anesthetics alone) in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched 10 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pediatric patients undergoing infra-umbilical surgery, comparing caudal block with and without dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvant. We performed a frequentist random-effects meta-analysis (R statistical package). We analyzed continuous outcomes as a ratio of means (ROM) and dichotomous data as relative risk (RR), along with 95% CI. We included 19 RCTs (n=1190 pediatric patients) in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia (defined as 'the time from caudal injection to the time at which the study-specific pain score was greater than a cut-off threshold'). FINDINGS: Data from 19 included RCTs (n=1190) suggested that compared with control (mean duration 346 min), the addition of caudal dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of analgesia (ratio of means 2.14, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.49, p<0.001; 'moderate' evidence). Trial-sequential analysis showed adequate 'information size' for the primary outcome. Caudal dexmedetomidine also reduced the number of analgesic administrations ('low' evidence), total acetaminophen dose ('moderate' evidence) and the risk of emergence delirium ('moderate' evidence). There were no significant differences in adverse effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, post-operative nausea and vomiting, urinary retention and respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetic in caudal block significantly improves the duration of analgesia and reduces the analgesic requirements, while maintaining a similar risk-profile compared with local anesthetic alone. Further data on neurological safety are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".