SynthesisMedicine2026
A comparative study of dexmedetomidine versus clonidine as additives for spinal anesthesia: A meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. 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
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus clonidine as adjuvants to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of dexmedetomidine and clonidine when used as adjuvants to intrathecal local anesthetics.
resultsA total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with clonidine, dexmedetomidine significantly improved spinal block characteristics, including a faster onset of sensory block (standardized mean difference: -0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.06 to -0.090; P < .05), a longer duration of sensory block (mean difference [MD] = 29.87 minutes, 95% CI: 21.89-37.86; P < .05), a longer duration of motor block (MD = 31.12 minutes, 95% CI: 14.51-47.73; P < .05), and a prolonged time to first rescue analgesia (MD = 21.86 minutes, 95% CI: 13.14-30.59; P < .05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the clonidine and dexmedetomidine groups with respect to the incidence of nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, hypotension, or shivering (P ≥ .05).
conclusionWhen used as an intrathecal adjuvant and compared with clonidine, dexmedetomidine yields superior spinal block characteristics, including a shorter onset time of sensory block, longer durations of both sensory and motor block, and an extended time to first rescue analgesia. No differences were detected between the 2 drugs in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, hypotension, and shivering.
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.