ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2018
Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Midazolam Using Jet-injector in Pediatric Sedation; a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2018. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approach to subcutaneous infusions in primary care: Indications, practical considerations, acceptability, and tolerability.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Review
- Needle-Free Jet Injectors and Their Potential Applications in Plastic Surgery: A Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
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
introductionThe quality of interventions in children is largely dependent on their control. Hence, this study compared the sedative effects of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) Midazolam in pediatric sedation induction.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted on children aged 1-6 years presenting to emergency departments of Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals, Yazd, Iran. Participants were randomly assigned to IV or SC midazolam using a jet injector and success rate, degree of sedation, and satisfaction of parents and physician were compared between groups.
results60 cases with the mean age of 3.15±1.43 (1-6) years were randomly assigned to the SC (30 cases) or IV (30 cases) groups (56.7% female). SC and IV groups were similar regarding the mean age (p = 0.165) and sex (p = 0.121). Depth of sedation (p=0.900), control of child (p=0.711), in-charge physician's satisfaction (p=0.467), successful sedation and need for rescue dose (p=0.519) were not different between groups. IV midazolam group had a significantly shorter recovery time (about 10 minutes; p=0.040) and SC midazolam group had a significantly higher level of parent satisfaction (p=0.001).
conclusionThe findings indicate no significant difference in depth of sedation, control of child, in-charge physician's satisfaction, successful sedation (reaching stage 1 of sedation or higher), and need for rescue dose of SC and IV midazolam. Parents' satisfaction was significantly greater with SC administration and IV injection had shorter recovery time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30584569PMC6289147W2895005667What 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.