ArticleCureus2022
Intranasal Midazolam With Lidocaine for Sedation in Pediatric Myringotomy and Tube Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIntranasal midazolam (INM) sedation for children has been associated with side effects. This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed whether the addition of lidocaine to INM (INM+L) affected efficacy or discharge time among pediatric patients undergoing elective bilateral myringotomy and tube placement (BMT).
methodsThis trial enrolled children aged between 18 months to seven years undergoing BMT, physical status class 1 or 2, in a single academic medical center. Interventions were placebo (intranasal saline), INM only (0.2mg/kg of INM concentration 5mg/ml), and INM+L (0.2mg/kg INM with addition of lidocaine 4% based on 25% of midazolam volume). Outcomes included post-anesthesia care unit times, observed behavioral distress (OBD) visual analog scale (VAS) (by nurse and parent), and sedation scores by certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) and registered nurse (RN).
resultsForty-two subjects were included, 14 in each group, with 52% female, 41% physical status 2, and an average age of 2.7 years. Post-anesthesia care unit times averaged 36.5 minutes (range 15-132 minutes), with no delay in discharge with INM or INM+L versus placebo (p=0.88). Verbal complaints were highest among INM+L at the time of administration (p=0.01). RN-scored OBD at one minute post administration differed significantly across the three groups (p=0.01). Parental OBD scores did not differ across treatment groups. Agitation was greatest at time of induction of anesthesia in the placebo group (p=0.01).
conclusionsThe addition of licodaine to INM does not adversely influence time to discharge and does not reduce side effects, improve efficacy, or change duration of action of INM.
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.