ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Comparison between midazolam and propofol in acute phase for ventilated patients with sepsis: a
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Sedation Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Neurocritical Care Patients from 19 Countries: An International Cohort Study.Neurocritical care · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: There are few assessments of sedatives during the acute phase under sedation protocols for patients with sepsis. We aimed to compare the influence of different sedation strategies using midazolam and propofol under light sedation on clinical outcomes of ventilated patients with sepsis. Methods: This study was a Results: The midazolam and propofol groups consisted of 51 and 66 patients, respectively. Both groups had similar characteristics, except for age and emergency surgery. The number of well-controlled sedation patients in the propofol group on day three was significantly higher than that in the midazolam group (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% CI [1.30, 11.7]). The incidence of daily coma and delirium within the initial week was different between groups and increased with midazolam administration (P = 0.0138). The number of Confusion Assessment Method for ICU-positive patients was significantly higher in the midazolam group than in the propofol group (OR 5.71, 95% CI [2.30, 14.2]). Conclusion: In patients with sepsis required mechanical ventilation, sedation with midazolam based on a light sedation protocol may be associated with inappropriate sedation during the acute phase, with increased coma and delirium as compared to propofol.
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.