ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Evaluation of the effects of sedation administered via three different routes on the procedure, child and parent satisfaction during cystometry.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for improving comfort and satisfaction in adult patients undergoing urodynamic studies: an evidence summary.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Self-adjusted Nitrous Oxide During Urodynamic Studies Reduces Patient Pain Without Compromising Study Quality: A Randomized Controlled Trial.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Nebulized Midazolam versus Oral Midazolam as Sedative Premedication in Pediatric Surgeries.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we retrospectively investigated case reports with and without midazolam administration via oral, intranasal and rectal before cystometry procedure. We aimed to compare the data to evaluate the effects of sedation before cystometry on the pediatric patients and parents' satisfaction.
methodsA total of 124 ASA I-II pediatric cases aged 5-14 years were retrospectively investigated from the hospital records. One of the three administration routes was chosen; oral midazolam at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg and nasal or rectal midazolam at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg (maximum 15 mg). Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, the Wisconsin Hospital of Children Sedation Scale (CHWSS) score and the Groningen Distress Rating Scale (GDRS) score were recorded. Cystometry measurement values, diagnoses of the cases and procedure durations were recorded from the urodynamic laboratory records.
results80 female, 44 male cases were evaluated. The CHWSS score at the 10th and 20th minutes after the drug administeration was higher in the oral group than the others (p = 0.001). The duration between the administration of the drug and the start of the procedure was shorter in the nasal group (p = 0.01). Parents satisfaction for sedation was 77 % when comparison of the cystometry with and without sedation. Comparison of the cystometry results with or without sedation no significant difference was found between all parameters (p > 0.01).
conclusionWe believe that sedation with midazolam administered through all three routes is a safe, effective and convenient option during cystometry, especially in the young age group.
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.