Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28107373›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam in Procedural Sedation. A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.

Clemens R M Barends, Anthony Absalom, Baucke van Minnen, Arjan Vissink, Anita Visser

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05788393 (Opioid Sparing Analgesia Continuous Intraoperative Infusion of Dexmedetomidine Versus Lidocaine for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy a Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 86 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05788393 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Opioid Sparing Analgesia Continuous Intraoperative Infusion of Dexmedetomidine Versus Lidocaine for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy a Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled64ConditionsAnalgesiaArmsDexmedetomidine Injection [Precedex], Lidocaine IV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

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

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clemens R M BarendsDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anthony AbsalomDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Baucke van MinnenDepartment of oral and maxillofacial surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arjan VissinkDepartment of oral and maxillofacial surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anita VisserDepartment of oral and maxillofacial surgery, University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review the literature comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam when used for procedural sedation. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE for clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam for procedural sedation up to June 20, 2016. Inclusion criteria: clinical trial, human subjects, adult subjects (≥18 years), article written in English, German, French or Dutch, use of study medication for conscious sedation and at least one group receiving dexmedetomidine and one group receiving midazolam. Exclusion criteria: patients in intensive care, pediatric subjects and per protocol use of additional sedative medication other than rescue medication. Outcome measures for efficacy comparison were patient and clinician satisfaction scores and pain scores; outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.

resultsWe identified 89 papers, of which 12 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 883 patients were included in these studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher patient and operator satisfaction than midazolam. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced less pain and had lower analgesic requirements. Respiratory and hemodynamic safety were similar.

conclusionsDexmedetomidine is a promising alternative to midazolam for use in procedural sedation. Dexmedetomidine provides more comfort during the procedure for the patient and clinician. If carefully titrated, the safety profiles are similar.

Indexed as

DexmedetomidineHemodynamicsHumansHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamRespirationDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesMidazolam

Identifiers

PMID28107373
PMCPMC5249234
OpenAlexW2579033526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.