ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2019
Comparative Analysis of Intravenous Midazolam with Nasal Spray for Conscious Sedation in Minor Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeries.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental treatments under sedation-analgesia in patients who are unable to collaborate: a prospective observational study.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- The influence of drugs used for sedation during mechanical ventilation on respiratory pattern during unassisted breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation: a physiological systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Trends for in-office usage of pharmacological sedation agents in India: A narrative review.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyReview
- Intranasal Dexmedetomidine on Post-operative Pain and Swelling after Third Molar Impaction Surgery - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of nasal spray midazolam by collating it with conventional intravenous midazolam for conscious sedation in minor oral surgeries. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty patients were selected randomly and divided into two groups: group A for intranasal midazolam atomized spray (
resultsIn this study, both intranasal and intravenous groups showed decrease in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure intraoperatively but within physiological limits and increase in the average pulse rates in both the groups. The average oxygen saturation levels were maintained to normal range in both the groups. The average respiratory rate decreased in both intranasal and intravenous groups during surgical procedure. The preoperative to postoperative anxiety scores were decreased significantly in the both groups and there was no significant difference in pre- to postoperative anxiety scores between the groups.
conclusionBoth intravenous and intranasal administration of midazolam showed better patient cooperation, satisfaction, and clinical effectiveness. Intranasal midazolam spray is effective in the reduction of subjective stress, reliable anxiolysis while preserving protective reflexes.
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.