Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25518037›Full record

SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2014

Premedication with dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ke Peng, Shao-ru Wu, Fu-hai Ji, Jian Li

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05192629 (Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Active-controlled, Phase 3 Clinical Trial Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine to Oral Midazolam as Premedication for Propofol Sedation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05192629 phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Active-controlled, Phase 3 Clinical Trial Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine to Oral Midazolam as Premedication for Propofol Sedation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrugmann University HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled250ConditionsMRI, Pediatric Sedation, Midazolam, DexmedetomidineArmsDexmedetomidine, Midazolam
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. [Effect of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation after general anesthesia in children undergoing odontotherapy in day-surgery operating room].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2017
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ke PengDepartment of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Shao-ru WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Fu-hai JiDepartment of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Jian LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Premedication is important in pediatric anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of dexmedetomidine as a premedicant for pediatric patients. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine premedication with midazolam or ketamine premedication or placebo in children. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. The original data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager 5. The main parameters investigated included satisfactory separation from parents, satisfactory mask induction, postoperative rescue analgesia, emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1190 patients were included. When compared with midazolam, premedication with dexmedetomidine resulted in an increase in satisfactory separation from parents (RD = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.30, p = 0.003) and a decrease in the use of postoperative rescue analgesia (RD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09, p = 0.0003). Children treated with dexmedetomidine had a lower heart rate before induction. The incidence of satisfactory mask induction, emergence agitation and PONV did not differ between the groups. Dexmedetomidine was superior in providing satisfactory intravenous cannulation compared to placebo. This meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is superior to midazolam premedication because it resulted in enhanced preoperative sedation and decreased postoperative pain. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the dosing schemes and long-term outcomes of dexmedetomidine premedication in pediatric anesthesia.

Indexed as

Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsAnesthesiaAnesthetics, DissociativeChildChild, PreschoolDexmedetomidineFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesKetamineMaleMidazolamPremedicationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsAnesthetics, DissociativeDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesKetamineMidazolam

Identifiers

PMID25518037
PMCPMC4255070
OpenAlexW1965695490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.