Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31538393›Full record

SynthesisPaediatric anaesthesia2019

Efficacy of oral midazolam for minimal and moderate sedation in pediatric patients: A systematic review.

Maria A Manso, Catherine Guittet, François Vandenhende, Luc-André Granier

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria A MansoClinical Affairs, Advicenne, Nîmes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5056-9065
Catherine GuittetClinical Affairs, Advicenne, Nîmes, France.
François VandenhendeStatistics, ClinBay, Genappe, Belgium.
Luc-André GranierClinical Affairs, Advicenne, Nîmes, France.
Advicenne Pharma (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most widely used options for minimal/moderate sedation in pediatric patients is oral midazolam, as it presents an alternative to less well-accepted routes of administration (eg, intravenous or intranasal) of this well-known efficacious and well-tolerated short-acting benzodiazepine. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to identify clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral midazolam for sedation in pediatric patients in the context of premedication before anesthesia or during diagnostic/treatment procedures. The percentage of responders (response rate) after single administration of oral midazolam was evaluated and compared versus placebo in a subset of placebo-controlled studies. The range of oral midazolam doses providing effective sedation in the different pediatric age subsets was analyzed in order to assess optimum dosing strategies. A total of 25 pediatric clinical studies, utilizing a variety of measures of sedation effectiveness, were selected. These studies included a total of 1472 patients (aged 4 months-18 years) treated with midazolam (0.25-1.5 mg/kg) and 138 patients treated with placebo. The response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranged from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%], while with placebo response rates ranged from 4.0% [0.6%, 23.5%] to 41.0% [29.4%, 53.6%]. When considering the 4 placebo-controlled studies, the odds ratios [95% confidence interval] for the comparison of midazolam vs. placebo ranged from 13.4 [5.0, 36.0] to 25.9 [6.7, 100.6]. The analysis of subgroups by context of sedation showed response rates [95% confidence interval] with oral midazolam ranging from 36.7% [21.6%, 54.9%] to 97.0% [94.8%, 98.3%] for anesthetic premedication and from 56.1% [43.1%, 68.4] to 97.8% [86.1%, 99.7%] for medical procedures. The efficacy of midazolam for pediatric minimal/moderate sedation from a dose of 0.25 mg/kg and above was demonstrated. The probability of occurrence of adverse events and over-sedation increases with increasing doses.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAdministration, OralAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfantMidazolamProcedural SedationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypnotics and SedativesMidazolambenzodiazepinesclinical efficacyhypnotics and sedativespediatricspreanesthetic medicationrandomized trials

Identifiers

PMID31538393
PMCPMC6900062
OpenAlexW2974794163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.