ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Intranasal midazolam sedation as an effective sedation route in pediatric patients for radiologic imaging in the emergency ward: A single-blind randomized trial.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drugs for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drugs in R&D · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Sedative Effects of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine, Midazolam, and Ketamine in Outpatient Pediatric Surgeries: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of intranasal sedation for pediatric dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
- A comparative study to assess the efficacy of atomized versus drops administration of intranasal midazolam as premedication in pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia-A prospective randomized double-blind study.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevention and reduction of pain, anxiety, and fear during medical procedures is one of the most important factors that should be considered in pediatric emergencies. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral versus intranasal midazolam in sedation during radiologic imaging in the largest province of Iran, Kerman. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty children were enrolled in this single-blind clinical trial based on convenience sampling and were divided into two groups receiving 0.5 mg/kg midazolam in oral route administration and 0.2 mg/kg midazolam in intranasal route administration. Finally, 75 patients remained for evaluating medication acceptability, sedation level, onset time of sedation, additional sedative dose, adverse effects of sedation, and provider satisfaction.
resultsChildren in the intranasal group accepted medication more easily (89.8% vs. 36.9%;
conclusionIntranasal midazolam with a lower sedation dose induces a faster onset and better acceptance. Intranasal midazolam can be used as an effective sedative method for pediatric patients, especially in emergency wards.
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.