SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Midazolam for sedation before procedures.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 9 of them syntheses 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
64 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drugs for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drugs in R&D · 2025Pooled it
- Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Midazolam for sedation before procedures in adults and children: a systematic review update.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of oral midazolam for minimal and moderate sedation in pediatric patients: A systematic review.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy of chloral hydrate oral solution for sedation in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Drug design, development and therapy · 2019Pooled it
- What is the level of evidence for the amnestic effects of sedatives in pediatric patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Propofol use in newborns and children: is it safe? A systematic review.Jornal de pediatriaPooled it
- Oral preanesthetic medication in children ... comparison between midazolam alone and in combination with ketamine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Pooled it
- Trial
- Effects of Passiflora incarnata on salivary biomarkers and anxiety in patients undergoing third molar extraction surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Effect of remimazolam on oxygen reserve compared with propofol during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Randomized controlled study.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Trial
- Comparative Study About Different Doses of Remimazolam in Short Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Trial.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023Trial
- Old Is (Not) Gold: Midazolam Monotherapy versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl for Sedation during Cardiac Catheterization.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Trial
- Article
- Dose-dependent side effects of prehospital analgesia with ketamine for winter sports injuries - an observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device: a randomized controlled clinical study.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Intranasal Midazolam Prior to Enema for Management of Constipation in the Pediatric Emergency Department.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Video Games Versus Midazolam in Reducing Perioperative Anxiety in Pediatric Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- Safety and Satisfaction Analysis of Intravenous and Inhalational Conscious Sedation in a Geriatric Population Undergoing Oral Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMidazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.
objectivesTo determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN
resultsWe included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.
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.