ReviewCureus2025
Assessing Neonatal Apgar Scores Following Propofol and Thiopental Induction in Cesarean Sections: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Propofol and thiopental are commonly used induction agents for general anesthesia in cesarean sections. While both are effective, their impact on neonatal outcomes, particularly Apgar scores, remains a subject of clinical interest. Neonatal Apgar scores are critical indicators of early adaptation and are used to assess the immediate well-being of the newborn after delivery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of propofol and thiopental on neonatal Apgar scores at five minutes following cesarean delivery under general anesthesia. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for studies published up to 2025. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or comparative studies that evaluated pregnant women undergoing cesarean section under general anesthesia, comparing propofol versus thiopental for induction, and reporting neonatal Apgar scores at five minutes. Exclusion criteria included studies with incomplete data, non-comparative designs, or lacking Apgar score reporting. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of low Apgar scores (< 7) at five minutes. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², τ², and χ² statistics. Five studies comprising 657 participants (propofol: n = 506; thiopental: n = 494) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled OR for low Apgar scores at five minutes was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.58-1.49; p = 0.76), indicating no statistically significant difference between the two agents. Heterogeneity was low to moderate (τ² = 0.05; χ² = 5.42; df = 4; p = 0.25; I² = 26%). All included studies were at low risk of bias. These findings suggest that both agents are comparably safe for neonatal outcomes at five minutes and can be considered clinically acceptable options for induction in obstetric anesthesia. However, clinicians should consider individual patient contexts and institutional protocols when choosing between the agents. Further large-scale studies are recommended to assess other neonatal and maternal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.