Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34220149›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical dentistry

Sedative and Behavioral Effects of Intranasal Midazolam in Comparison with Other Administrative Routes in Children Undergoing Dental Treatment - A Systematic Review.

Neethu Ann Preethy, Sujatha Somasundaram

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intranasal versus sublingual sedation in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of Midazolam in Outpatient Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neethu Ann PreethyDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sujatha SomasundaramDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Saveetha University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam administered through other routes in the sedation and behavior management of children during dental treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe search was done using electronic databases such as PubMed Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, ScienceDirect, and SIGLE. All studies comparing the sedative effect and behavior management effectiveness of intranasal midazolam with midazolam administered through other routes in children were included.

resultsElectronic database search identified 163 articles, out of which 143 were excluded after reading titles and removing duplication. The remaining 20 studies were evaluated in detail. A final of 13 studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Among the 13 studies included in the present review, a high risk of bias was noted in all the 13 articles. There was no adequate blinding of personnel and participants in the study, allocation concealment was improper and presence of inadequate blinding of the outcome assessment. . Statistically, no significant difference was observed between intranasal midazolam and other midazolam routes on behavior and sedation level in the studies included in this review.

conclusionLimited studies are available pertaining to the sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam, and thus, this review recommends need for more research evaluating the sedative effect of intranasal midazolam in comparison with midazolam administered through other routes in the behavior management of children during dental treatment.

Indexed as

Conscious sedationmidazolampediatric dentistrysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34220149
PMCPMC8237818
OpenAlexW3167388074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.