ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Differences in efficacy and safety of midazolam vs. dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Dexmedetomidine in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Yonsei medical journal · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Dexmedetomidine's Role in Adult ICU After 20 Years of Experience-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Multidisciplinary Approach to Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome: From Diagnosis to Long-Term Management-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Meta-analysis comparing dexmedetomidine versus standard of care for sedation in patients with sepsis.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2022Review
- Arrhythmias in COVID-19.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in patients that are critically ill. Full text articles reporting the clinical effects and complications of dexmedetomidine and midazolam were retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis, sensitivity and bias analysis. Finally, a total of 1,379 patients from 8 studies, which met the eligibility criteria, were included. The meta-analysis suggested that the length of stay at the intensive care unit [mean absolute difference (MD)=-1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.13, -1.48; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.41; I²=3%], time to extubation (MD=-2.18; 95% CI, -2.66, -1.69; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.84; I²=0%) and delirium (MD=0.46; 95% CI, 0.37, 0.57; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.65; I²=0%) was higher following midazolam treatment compared with dexmedetomidine, while bradycardia [odds ratio (OR)=5.03; 95% CI, 3.86, 6.57; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.13; I²=38%] was higher in dexmedetomidine treated patients compared with midazolam. However, no difference was observed in the incidence of hypotension (OR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.70, 1.10; P=0.26; P-value for heterogeneity=0.99; I²=0%) and mortality (OR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.25; P=0.77; P-value for heterogeneity=0.99; I²=0%). Taking clinical effects and safety into account, the present study suggested dexmedetomidine to be the preferred option of anesthesia for patients that are critically ill.
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.