Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26858095›Full record

ReviewAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2016

What Works and What's Safe in Pediatric Emergency Procedural Sedation: An Overview of Reviews.

Lisa Hartling, Andrea Milne, Michelle Foisy, Eddy S Lang, Douglas Sinclair, Terry P Klassen, Lisa Evered

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrea MilneAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Michelle FoisyAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Eddy S LangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Douglas SinclairDepartment of Emergency Medicine, St. Michaels Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Terry P KlassenDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Manitoba and Child Health Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Lisa EveredDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedation is increasingly used to facilitate procedures on children in emergency departments (EDs). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) examines the safety and efficacy of sedative agents commonly used for procedural sedation in children in the ED or similar settings.

methodsWe followed standard SR methods: comprehensive search; dual study selection, quality assessment, data extraction. We included SRs of children (1 month to 18 years) where the indication for sedation was procedure-related and performed in the ED.

resultsFourteen SRs were included (210 primary studies). The most data were available for propofol (six reviews/50,472 sedations) followed by ketamine (7/8,238), nitrous oxide (5/8,220), and midazolam (4/4,978). Inconsistent conclusions for propofol were reported across six reviews. Half concluded that propofol was sufficiently safe; three reviews noted a higher occurrence of adverse events, particularly respiratory depression (upper estimate 1.1%; 5.4% for hypotension requiring intervention). Efficacy of propofol was considered in four reviews and found adequate in three. Five reviews found ketamine to be efficacious and seven reviews showed it to be safe. All five reviews of nitrous oxide concluded it is safe (0.1% incidence of respiratory events); most found it effective in cooperative children. Four reviews of midazolam made varying recommendations. To be effective, midazolam should be combined with another agent that increases the risk of adverse events (upper estimate 9.1% for desaturation, 0.1% for hypotension requiring intervention).

conclusionsThis comprehensive examination of an extensive body of literature shows consistent safety and efficacy for nitrous oxide and ketamine, with very rare significant adverse events for propofol. There was considerable heterogeneity in outcomes and reporting across studies and previous reviews. Standardized outcome sets and reporting should be encouraged to facilitate evidence-based recommendations for care.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, IntravenousChildFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesHypotensionMaleProcedural SedationPropofolRespiratory InsufficiencySafetyAnesthetics, IntravenousHypnotics and SedativesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID26858095
PMCPMC5021163
OpenAlexW2259373416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.