SynthesisPloS one2015
The anxiolytic effect of midazolam in third molar extraction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of oral sedation in adult patients undergoing dental procedures: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Immediate postoperative anesthesia with either lidocaine or bupivacaine: A short-term clinical response.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- Salivary Cortisol as a Stress Monitor During Third Molar Surgery.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2022Article
- Moderate sedation by total intravenous remimazolam-alfentanil vs. propofol-alfentanil for third molar extraction: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine in pediatric dentistry.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the efficacy of midazolam for anxiety control in third molar extraction surgery.
methodsElectronic retrievals were conducted in Medline (via PubMed, 1950-2013.12), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), Embase (via OVID 1974-2013.12), and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE). The bibliographies of relevant clinical trials were also checked. Randomized controlled trials satisfying the inclusion criteria were evaluated, with data extraction done independently by two well-trained investigators. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with a third member of the review team.
resultsTen studies were included, but meta-analysis could not be conducted because of the significant differences among articles. All but one article demonstrated that midazolam could relieve anxiety. One article demonstrated that propofol offered superior anxiolysis, with more rapid recovery than with midazolam. Compared with lorazepam and diazepam, midazolam did not distinctly dominate in its sedative effect, but was safer. Two articles used midazolam in multidrug intravenous sedation and proved it to be more effective than midazolam alone.
conclusionIt was found, by comparison and analysis, that midazolam might be effective for use for anxiety control during third molar extraction and can be safely administered by a dedicated staff member. It can also be used with other drugs to obtain better sedative effects, but the patient's respiratory function must be monitored closely, because multidrug sedation is also more risky.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.