Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32347647›Full record

SynthesisCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2020

A comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

Bingchen Lang, Lingli Zhang, Wensheng Zhang, Yunzhu Lin, Yuzhi Fu, Shouming Chen

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia plus Dorsal Penile Nerve Block in Pediatric Circumcision.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bingchen LangDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Lingli ZhangDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1407-8098
Wensheng ZhangLaboratory of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Translational Neuroscience Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yunzhu LinDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yuzhi FuDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Shouming ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate comprehensively the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation, and to investigate whether the outcomes achieved the required information size to draw the conclusions.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2019. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. Sedative efficacy, postoperative analgesic effect, and incidence of emergence agitation were considered as the co-primary outcomes. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to rate the quality of evidences.

resultsWe acquired data from 34 studies involving 2281 pediatric patients. The results indicated that administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.78, with 95% CI [0.65, 0.92]) and more satisfactory sedation at parental separation (RR = 0.31, with 95% CI [0.24, 0.41]) compared to midazolam, and the current sample sizes were sufficient with unnecessary further trials. Two groups did not differ significantly in sedation level at mask induction (RR = 0.86, with 95% CI [0.74, 1.00]). And using of dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of postoperative analgesic rescue (RR = 0.57, with 95% CI [0.35, 0.93]), but the number of patients was too few to achieve the required information size and to draw reliable conclusions. Premedication of dexmedetomidine was associated with significant less value of SBP, heart rate, increased incidence of bradycardia, and a lower rate of shivering. And there were no differences about onset of sedation and recovery time between two groups.

conclusionsGiven that more satisfactory sedation at separation from parents and less incidence of emergence agitation, dexmedetomidine is preferred for pediatric sedation. However, compared with midazolam, the superiority of dexmedetomidine in providing adequate sedation at mask induction and postoperative analgesic effects has not yet been defined.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDexmedetomidineHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfantMidazolamPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamdexmedetomidinemeta-analysismidazolampediatricssedation

Identifiers

PMID32347647
PMCPMC7366749

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.