Systematic review and meta-analysis of the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine in patients after cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to increase the sample size and improve the test efficiency from a statistical perspective, we conducted a combined analysis of multiple results from similar studies. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the sedative effect of dexmedetomidine on patients after cardiac surgery, so as to provide theoretical basis and help for clinical treatment of cardiac diseases. METHODS: The Boolean logic search method was employed to search online databases for publications, with "dexmedetomidine", "cardiac surgery", "competitive antagonist", and "analgesic sedation" used as keywords. In addition, the literature was screened for comparative studies on the use of midazolam and propofol as controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) of Cochrane Collaborative Network was used to evaluate the pathological control studies in Meta-analysis, and the star rating system (out of 9 stars) was used to measure the results from the subjects, cases and groups. Finally, a meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software (Cochrane). RESULTS: Thirteen references containing mostly low-risk biases (medium-high quality) were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed no statistically obvious heterogeneity in the mechanical ventilation time (MVT) between patients in the control group (group A) or patients in the experimental group (group B) (Chi2=74.71; I2=92%; P<0.00001), showing no statistical significance (Z=1.57; P=0.12). Heterogeneity was found as a complication in both groups (Chi2=14.82; I2=60%; P=0.02), but fewer complications were observed in group B (Z=2.06, P=0.04). The sedative effect displayed by patients from the 2 groups during the induction of anesthesia was statistically heterogeneous (Chi2=6.45; I2=38%; P=0.17), but the sedative effect in group B was shown to be greater (Z=3.31, P=0.0009). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine can significantly reduce the mechanical ventilation time and the incidence of complications in patients after cardiac surgery, and has a high safety and good sedative effect on patients.
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 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".