MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136531014 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001490

Dexmedetomidine vs. total intravenous anaesthesia in paediatric emergence delirium

2021· review· en· W3136531014 on OpenAlexaff
Maria-Alexandra Petre, David Levin, Marina Englesakis, Jason T. Maynes, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Kazuyoshi Aoyama

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicineSevofluraneDeliriumEmergence deliriumAnesthesiaIncidence (geometry)Postoperative nausea and vomitingGeneral anaesthesiaRandomized controlled trialNauseaSurgeryIntensive care medicineSedation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emergence delirium is a common complication in paediatric anaesthesia associated with significant morbidity. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and intra-operative dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to sevoflurane anaesthesia can both reduce the incidence of emergence delirium compared with sevoflurane alone, but no studies have directly compared their relative efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to compare the effects of TIVA and dexmedetomidine on the incidence of paediatric emergence delirium. STUDY DESIGN: The current study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search of 12 databases including Medline (Ovid) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) from their respective inception to December 2020. ELIGIBILITY: Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of paediatric patients undergoing general anaesthesia using sevoflurane, sevoflurane with dexmedetomidine or TIVA. Data were extracted by two reviewers according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and analysed using NMA methodology. Risk ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated for all outcomes [emergence delirium, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and time to emergence and extubation]. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018091237). RESULTS: The systematic review returned 66 eligible studies comprising 5257 patients with crude median emergence delirium incidences of 12.8, 9.1 and 40% in the dexmedetomidine with sevoflurane, TIVA and sevoflurane alone groups, respectively. NMA indicated that compared with TIVA, sevoflurane with adjuvant dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of emergence delirium without statistical difference (risk ratio 0.88, 95% CrI 0.61 to 1.20, low quality of evidence), but resulted in a higher incidence of PONV (risk ratio: 2.3, 95% CrI 1.1 to 5.6, low quality of evidence). CONCLUSION: Clinical judgement, considering the patient's risk factors for the development of clinically significant outcomes such as emergence delirium and PONV, should be used when choosing between TIVA and sevoflurane with adjuvant dexmedetomidine. These findings are limited by the low quality of evidence (conditional recommendation).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.012
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207