ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Paediatric sedation for imaging is safe and effective in a district general hospital.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Sedation Assessment and Management System (PSAMS) for Pediatric Sedation in China: Development and Implementation Report.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Sedation for screening MRI in patients with congenital melanocytic naevi under the age of one is a successful, safe and economical first-line approach.The British journal of dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo devise a safe and effective sedation protocol for imaging paediatric patients in a small district general hospital (DGH).
methodsChloral hydrate, alimemazine and learned best practice were used for imaging 105 children between January 2013 and May 2015. We retrospectively reviewed case notes for this time period to establish rates of successful sedation and adverse events.
resultsScanning was successful in 100/105 (95%) children. No serious adverse events were reported. Non-serious adverse events occurred in eight cases. 12 patients were discharged more than 4 h after scanning owing to prolonged sedation.
conclusionThis is a safe and effective protocol for delivering sedation for imaging in paediatric patients. We would encourage similar centres to adopt this protocol where resources for i.v. sedation and general anaesthesia are limited. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: There are many different sedation protocols in the literature for imaging in paediatric patients, with varying levels of success and adverse event rates. We present here a protocol that offers a high efficacy and safe sedation for imaging in a DGH.
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.