Dexmedetomidine vs. total intravenous anaesthesia in paediatric emergence delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".