SynthesisMedicine2020
Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral chloral hydrate for diagnostic procedures sedation in infants and toddlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05163704 (Safe Sedation of Children During Radiological Examinations), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Safe Sedation of Children During Radiological Examinations
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological therapy of neonatal analgosedation: current status, dilemmas, and perspectives.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Current sedation practices for non-invasive procedures in tertiary maternity and children's hospitals in China: a 5-year update.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
- Clinical Use of Adrenergic Receptor Ligands in Acute Care Settings.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Review
- [Research progress on moderate and deep sedation during wound dressing change in pediatric burn patients].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023Review
- Safety of Dexmedetomidine as an Alternative Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Sedative: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
- Best Evidence-Based Dosing Recommendations for Dexmedetomidine for Premedication and Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics: Outcome of a Risk-Benefit Analysis By the Dutch Pediatric Formulary.Paediatric drugs · 2022Article
- Dexmedetomidine: What's New for Pediatrics? A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Reflections on: "Is intranasal dexmedetomidine superior to oral chloral hydrate for procedural sedation in children: A systematic review".Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntranasal dexmedetomidine is a relatively new way to sedate young children undergoing nonpainful diagnostic procedures. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal dexmedetomidine in young children with those of oral chloral hydrate, which has been a commonly used method for decades.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all randomized controlled trials that compared intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral chloral hydrate in children undergoing diagnostic procedures. Data on success rate of sedation, onset time, recovery time, and adverse effects were extracted and respectively analyzed.
resultsFive studies with a total of 720 patients met the inclusion criteria. Intranasal dexmedetomidine provided significant higher success rate of sedation (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.24; P = .02; I = 74%) than oral chloral hydrate. Furthermore, it experienced significantly shorter onset time (weight mean difference [WMD], -1.79; 95% CI, -3.23 to -0.34; P = .02; I = 69%). Nevertheless, there were no statistically differences in recovery time (WMD, -10.53; 95% CI, -24.17 to 3.11; P = .13; I = 92%) and the proportion of patients back to normal activities (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.77-1.60; P = .57; I = 0%). Intranasal dexmedetomidine was associated with a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < .0001; I = 0%) than oral chloral hydrate. Although adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension and hypoxia were not synthetized due to lack of data, no clinical interventions except oxygen supplementation were required in any patients.
conclusionOur meta-analysis revealed that intranasal dexmedetomidine is possibly a more effective and acceptable sedation method for infants and toddlers undergoing diagnostic procedures than oral chloral hydrate. Additionally, it shows similar safety profile and could be a potential alternative to oral chloral hydrate.
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.