SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Efficacy and safety of preoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAirway manipulation during General Anesthesia (GA) can produce sympathetic activation and hemodynamic instability. Intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine attenuates these responses but may cause bradycardia or hypotension. Intranasal (IN) administration is a noninvasive alternative with uncertain evidence in adults. We evaluated preoperative IN dexmedetomidine in adult patients undergoing GA.
methodsWe performed a PROSPERO-registered (CRD420251250492) systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CDSR were searched from inception to November 26, 2025. IN dexmedetomidine versus control and IN vs. IV dexmedetomidine were assessed separately. Random-effects models pooled continuous outcomes as MDs/SMDs and adverse events as RRs. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and certainty of evidence using GRADE.
resultsAcross 25 trials including 1,968 patients, IN dexmedetomidine was associated with deeper sedation (SMD = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.18-1.34) and reduced heart rate and mean arterial pressure at induction, intubation, and during the early intraoperative period compared with control (MD range: -12.7 to -13.4 bpm and -7.8 to -10.7 mmHg, respectively). Rates of bradycardia and hypotension were similar between IN dexmedetomidine and control groups. Compared with IV dexmedetomidine, IN administration resulted in lighter sedation (SMD = -0.54; 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.01), with similar hemodynamic effects, while bradycardia and hypotension occurred less frequently.
conclusionPreoperative IN dexmedetomidine may improve sedation and blunt peri-induction hemodynamic responses compared with controls, with broadly similar hemodynamic effects and fewer observed cardiovascular adverse events versus IV administration. However, certainty was low or very low for several efficacy outcomes, and larger well-designed trials are needed.
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.