Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26495395›Full record

ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2015

Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Promethazine with Oral Midazolam alone for Sedating Children during Computed Tomography.

Hassan Barzegari, Behzad Zohrevandi, Kambiz Masoumi, Arash Forouzan, Ali Asgari Darian, Shaqayeq Khosravi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hassan BarzegariDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Behzad ZohrevandiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Kambiz MasoumiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Arash ForouzanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Ali Asgari DarianDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Shaqayeq KhosraviDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBoth midazolam and promethazine are recommended to be used as sedatives in many studies but each have some side effects that limits their use. Combination therapy as an alternative method, may decreases these limitations. Therefore, this study aimed to compare midazolam with midazolam-promethazine regarding induction, maintenance, and recovery characteristics following pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia.

methodsChildren under 7 years old who needed sedation for being CT scanned were included in this double-blind randomized clinical trial. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: one only received midazolam (0.5 mg/kg), while the other group received a combination of midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and promethazine (1.25 mg/kg). University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was used to assess sedation induction. In addition to demographic data, the child's vital signs were evaluated before prescribing the drugs and after inducing sedation (reaching UMSS level 2). The primary outcomes in the present study were onset of action after administration and duration of the drugs' effect.

results107 patients were included in the study. Mean onset of action was 55.4±20.3 minutes for midazolam and 32.5±11.1 minutes for midazolam-promethazine combination (p<0.001). But duration of effect was not different between the 2 groups (p=0.36). 8 (7.5%) patients were unresponsive to the medication, all 8 of which were in the midazolam treated group (p=0.006). Also in 18 (16.8%) cases a rescue dose was prescribed, 14 (25.9%) were in the midazolam group and 4 (7.5%) were in the midazolam-promethazine group (p=0.02). Comparing systolic (p=0.20) and diastolic (p=0.34) blood pressure, heart rate (p=0.16), respiratory rate (p=0.17) and arterial oxygen saturation level (p=0.91) showed no significant difference between the 2 groups after intervention.

conclusionBased on the findings of this study, it seems that using a combination of midazolam and promethazine not only speeds up the sedation induction, but also decreases unresponsiveness to the treatment and the need for a rescue dose.

Indexed as

anti-anxiety agentsconscious sedationmidazolamPromethazine

Identifiers

PMID26495395
PMCPMC4608335
OpenAlexW1558827606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.