BACKGROUND: Combining adjunctive medications with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been used to minimize opioid related side-effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether postoperative infusion of a sub-sedative dose of dexmedetomidine can reduce opioid consumption and opioid related side-effects. METHODS: We selected 60 patients from 18 to 60 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 1–2 who were scheduled for elective surgery. The types of surgery were limited to thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung and pulmonary wedge resection under a mini-thoracotomy. Patients received PCA with sufentanil upon arrival in the recovery room, along with a separate continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine that was not mixed in the PCA but started at the same time. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: dexmedetomidine 0.15 μg/kg/h was administered to patients in group D and normal saline was administered to patients in group C. The visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiratory rate were measured at each assessment. PCA related side-effects were evaluated. RESULTS: The VAS pain score was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group required significantly less PCA at postoperative 1–4, 4–8, and 8–24 h time intervals. The incidence of nausea was significantly less in the dexmedetomidine group, and levels of sedation and hemodynamic variables except for blood pressure at postoperative 8 h were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a postoperatively administered sub-sedative dose of dexmedetomidine reduces PCA sufentanil consumption and decreases nausea.
Analgesia, Patient-Controlled* ; Blood Pressure ; Dexmedetomidine* ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lung ; Nausea ; Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis ; Recovery Room ; Respiratory Rate ; Sufentanil*

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies. CONCLUSION: Greater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.
Biomarkers ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine* ; Methods*