Skip to main content
. 2025 Jun 21;39(6):948–975. doi: 10.1007/s00540-025-03524-8

Table 2.

Summary of Findings (SoF) for the comparisons between Thiopental and Propofol, and Thiopental and Ketamine

Outcomes Number of studies Number of patients Effect Certainty
Comparison (Propofol or Ketamine) Thiopental Relative (95% CI) Absolute (95% CI)
Comparison of Thiopental versus Propofol
pH in UA 12 263 266 - 0 (0.01 lower to 0)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

Apgar score < 7 at one minute 7 81/230 (35.2%) 43/230 (18.7%)

RR 2.06

(1.06 to 4.01)

198 more per 1,000 (from 11 to 563 more)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,c,d

Apgar score < 7 at five minutes 7 15/230 (6.5%) 8/230 (3.5%)

RR 1.75

(0.81 to 3.78)

26 more per 1,000 (from 7 fewer to 97 more)

⨁⨁◯◯

Lowa,c,d,e

Recovery duration 4 91 91 - MD 112.36 mmHg lower (153.36 lower to 71.61 lower)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

BE in UA 8 177 175 - MD 0.55 mmHg higher (0.08 lower to 1.17 higher)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,e

in HCO3 in UA 3 78 80 - MD 1.25 mmHg lower (3.44 lower to 0.93 higher)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,c,d,e

SPO2 in UV 5 149 152 - MD 0.5 mmHg lower (6.7 lower to 5.7 higher)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,c,d,e

Comparison of Thiopental versus Ketamine
PvO2 in UV 9 179 174 - MD 0.23 mmHg higher (0.02 higher to 0.45 higher)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

Apgar score < 7 at 1 min 9 35/170 (20.6%) 18/175 (10.3%) RR 0.52 (0.31 to 0.85) 49 fewer per 1,000 (from 71 to 15 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

Apgar score < 7 at 5 min 9 13/170 (7.6%) 3/175 (1.7%) RR 0.28 (0.10 to 0.79) 12 fewer per 1,000 (from 15 to 4 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

AAGA 8 9/148 (6.1%) 29/147 (19.7%) RR 2.87 (1.58 to 5.21) 369 more per 1,000 (from 114 to 831 more)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderatea,f

pH in UA 4 66 65 - MD 0 mmHg (0.02 lower to 0.01 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

Lowa,c,e

pH in UV 5 86 85 - MD 0 mmHg (0.02 lower to 0.02 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

Lowa,c,e

PO₂ in UA 6 141 135 - MD 0.04 mmHg higher (0.12 lower to 0.2 higher)

⨁⨁◯◯

Lowa,c,e

CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, RR risk ratio

a. Downgraded due to risk of bias in studies (most studies have some concerns, and three studies of high risk)

b. Downgraded due to inconsistency (High heterogeneity)

c. Downgraded due to imprecision (Small sample size)

d. Downgraded due to imprecision (Wide confidence interval)

e. Downgraded due to imprecision (Confidence interval includes both benefit and harm)

f. The confidence interval is narrow and supports a clear direction of effect