Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32434638›Full record

Trial reportZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2020

[Sedative effect of intranasal midazolam in neonates undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective single-blind randomized controlled study].

Fang-Hui Wang, Jie Zhang, Mi Xiao, Fang Wu, Li Liu, Xi-Hui Zhou

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Midazolam for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fang-Hui WangDepartment of Neonatology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710061, China. zhouxih@mail.xjtu.edu.cn.
Jie Zhang
Mi Xiao
Fang Wu
Li Liu
Xi-Hui Zhou
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare intranasal midazolam and intramuscular phenobarbital sodium for their sedative effect in neonates undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsA total of 70 neonates who underwent cranial MRI from September 2017 to March 2019 were randomized into an observation group and a control group, with 35 cases in each group. The observation group received intranasal drops of midazolam (0.3 mg/kg), and the control group received intramuscular injection of phenobarbital sodium (10 mg/kg). The sedation status of the neonates was evaluated using the Ramsay Sedation Scale. Meanwhile, the two groups were compared for the success rate of MRI procedure and incidence of adverse reactions.

resultsIn the observation group, the sedation score was the highest at 20 minutes post administration, then was gradually decreasing, and decreased to the lowest level at 70 minutes post administration. In the control group, the sedation score was the lowest at 10 minutes post administration, then was gradually increasing, and increased to the highest level at 40 minutes and 50 minutes post administration, followed by a gradual decrease. Comparison of the sedation score at each time period suggested that the sedation score was significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group within 40 minutes post administration (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the sedation score after 40 minutes post administration (P>0.05). The success rate of MRI procedure was significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (89% vs 69%, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse reactions (P>0.05).

conclusionsIntranasal midazolam is superior to intramuscular phenobarbital sodium in the sedative effect in neonates undergoing MRI, with the benefits of being fast, convenient, safe, and effective.

Indexed as

HumansHypnotics and SedativesInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMidazolamProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodHypnotics and SedativesMidazolam

Identifiers

PMID32434638
PMCPMC7389410
OpenAlexW3026877805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.