Effects of Dexmedetomidine vs Esmolol on Postintubation Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Tracheal intubation (TI) consistently induces tachycardia and elevated blood pressure which may be deleterious to patients, particularly those with existing cardiac conditions. Use of dexmedetomidine or esmolol has been described to attenuate this sympathetic response. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs esmolol in attenuating the hemodynamic response during TI. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search in electronic databases and grey literature was completed. Researchers assessed article eligibility, performed data extraction, and completed risk of bias assessment. Results were expressed as pooled differences for cardiovascular parameters between the drugs as the weighted mean difference with 95% CI. A P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses exploring different drug regimens were performed. Results: Of 112 publications, 19 randomized controlled trials were included for descriptive analysis and 15 were selected for the meta-analysis with 948 patients. The use of dexmedetomidine vs esmolol provided lower heart rates and mean arterial pressures at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes and lower systolic and diastolic pressures at 1, 3, and 5 minutes after TI. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine blunts the hemodynamic response to TI more effectively vs esmolol.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it