Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27823876›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of emergency medicine2017

Optimal Volume of Administration of Intranasal Midazolam in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Daniel S Tsze, Maria Ieni, Daniel B Fenster, John Babineau, Joshua Kriger, Bruce Levin, Peter S Dayan

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01948908 phase2completednot on this map

Optimal Volumes of Administration for Intranasal Midazolam in Children

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2013 to 2015Enrolled99ConditionsChildren Requiring Sedation to Facilitate Laceration RepairArmsIntranasal midazolam
NCT03054844 phase2completednot on this map

Comparison of Two Methods Using Intranasal Lidocaine to Alleviate Discomfort Associated With Administration of Intranasal Midazolam in Children.

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2017 to 2017Enrolled55ConditionsPainArmsLidocaine, Lidocaine and midazolam (PREMIX), Midazolam
NCT04586504 phase1 / phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Dose-Finding Study of Intranasal Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in Children

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2021 to 2024Enrolled101ConditionsProcedural AnxietyArmsIntranasal midazolam
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Intranasal ketorolac versus intravenous ketorolac for treatment of migraine headaches in children: A randomized clinical trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Incidence and predictors of nonresponse to intranasal midazolam in children undergoing laceration repair.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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.

Daniel S TszeDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. Electronic address: dst2141@columbia.edu.
Maria IeniDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.
Daniel B FensterDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.
John BabineauDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.
Joshua KrigerDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Bruce LevinDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Peter S DayanDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveThe optimal intranasal volume of administration for achieving timely and effective sedation in children is unclear. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes relevant to procedural sedation associated with using escalating volumes of administration to administer intranasal midazolam.

methodsWe conducted a randomized, single-blinded, 3-arm, superiority clinical trial. Children aged 1 to 7 years and undergoing laceration repair requiring 0.5 mg/kg intranasal midazolam (5 mg/mL) were block-randomized to receive midazolam using 1 of 3 volumes of administration: 0.2, 0.5, or 1 mL. Procedures were videotaped, with outcome assessors blinded to volume of administration. Primary outcome was time to onset of minimal sedation (ie, score of 1 on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale). Secondary outcomes included procedural distress, time to procedure start, deepest level of sedation achieved, adverse events, and clinician and caregiver satisfaction.

resultsNinety-nine children were enrolled; 96 were analyzed for the primary outcome and secondary outcomes, except for the outcome of procedural distress, for which only 90 were analyzed. Time to onset of minimal sedation for each escalating volume of administration was 4.7 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8 to 5.4 minutes), 4.3 minutes (95% CI 3.9 to 4.9 minutes), and 5.2 minutes (95% CI 4.6 to 7.0 minutes), respectively. There were no differences in secondary outcomes except for clinician satisfaction with ease of administration: fewer clinicians were satisfied when using a volume of administration of 0.2 mL.

conclusionThere was a slightly shorter time to onset of minimal sedation when a volume of administration of 0.5 mL was used compared with 1 mL, but all 3 volumes of administration produced comparable clinical outcomes. Fewer clinicians were satisfied with ease of administration with a volume of administration of 0.2 mL.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalChildChild, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfantMaleMidazolamProcedural SedationSingle-Blind MethodTime FactorsHypnotics and SedativesMidazolam

Identifiers

PMID27823876
PMCPMC5406242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.