Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36683794›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Premedication before laryngoscopy in neonates: Evidence-based statement from the French society of neonatology (SFN).

Xavier Durrmeyer, Elizabeth Walter-Nicolet, Clément Chollat, Jean-Louis Chabernaud, Juliette Barois, Anne-Cécile Chary Tardy, Daniel Berenguer, Antoine Bedu, Noura Zayat, Jean-Michel Roué and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

19 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.

Xavier DurrmeyerNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.
Elizabeth Walter-NicoletNeonatal Medicine and Intensive Care Unit, Saint Joseph Hospital, Paris, France.
Clément ChollatDepartment of Neonatology, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Jean-Louis ChabernaudDivision of Neonatal and Pediatric Critical Care Transportation, Hôpital Antoine Beclere, AP-HP, Paris - Saclay University Hospital, Clamart, France.
Juliette BaroisDepartment of Neonatology and Neonatal Intensive Care, CH de Valenciennes, Valenciennes, France.
Anne-Cécile Chary TardyDepartment of Neonatology and Neonatal Intensive Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Daniel BerenguerDepartment of Pediatric Anesthesia and Pediatric Transport (SMUR Pédiatrique), Hôpital des Enfants, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Antoine BeduDepartment of Neonatal Pediatrics and Intensive Care, Limoges University Hospital, Limoges, France.
Noura ZayatDepartment of Neonatal Intensive Care and Pediatric Transport, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Jean-Michel RouéDepartment of Pediatric and Neonatal Critical Care, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France.
Anne BeisselNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France.
Claire BellangerDepartment of Neonatology and Neonatal Intensive Care, AP-HP, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France.
Aurélie DesenfantsDepartment of Neonatology, CHU Nimes, Université Montpellier, Nimes, France.
Riadh BoukhrisDepartment of Neonatology, Pôle Femme-Mère-Nouveau-Né, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France.
Anne LooseDepartment of Neonatology, CHRU de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, Tours, France.
Clarisse Massudom TagnyDepartment of Neonatology and Neonatal Intensive Care, Grand Hôpital de L'Est Francilien, Meaux, France.
Marie ChevallierDepartment of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, CHU Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Christophe MilesiDepartment of Neonatal Medicine and Pediatric Intensive Care, Montpellier University Hospital, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Manon TauzinNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.
Université de Montpellier · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre Hospitalier de Valenciennes · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRCHU Dijon Bourgogne · FRHôpital Femme Mère Enfant · FRHôpital Intercommunal de Créteil · FRHôpital Necker-Enfants Malades · FRInserm · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité de Limoges · FRUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Laryngoscopy is frequently required in neonatal intensive care. Awake laryngoscopy has deleterious effects but practice remains heterogeneous regarding premedication use. The goal of this statement was to provide evidence-based good practice guidance for clinicians regarding premedication before tracheal intubation, less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) and laryngeal mask insertion in neonates. Methods: A group of experts brought together by the French Society of Neonatology (SFN) addressed 4 fields related to premedication before upper airway access in neonates: (1) tracheal intubation; (2) less invasive surfactant administration; (3) laryngeal mask insertion; (4) use of atropine for the 3 previous procedures. Evidence was gathered and assessed on predefined questions related to these fields. Consensual statements were issued using the GRADE methodology. Results: Among the 15 formalized good practice statements, 2 were strong recommendations to do (Grade 1+) or not to do (Grade 1-), and 4 were discretionary recommendations to do (Grade 2+). For 9 good practice statements, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in an expert opinion. For tracheal intubation premedication was considered mandatory except for life-threatening situations (Grade 1+). Recommended premedications were a combination of opioid + muscle blocker (Grade 2+) or propofol in the absence of hemodynamic compromise or hypotension (Grade 2+) while the use of a sole opioid was discouraged (Grade 1-). Statements regarding other molecules before tracheal intubation were expert opinions. For LISA premedication was recommended (Grade 2+) with the use of propofol (Grade 2+). Statements regarding other molecules before LISA were expert opinions. For laryngeal mask insertion and atropine use, no specific data was found and expert opinions were provided. Conclusion: This statement should help clinical decision regarding premedication before neonatal upper airway access and favor standardization of practices.

Indexed as

analgeisaanesthesiaatropineintubation (intratracheal)laryngeal maskless invasive surfactant administration (LISA)neonatesedation

Identifiers

PMID36683794
PMCPMC9846576
OpenAlexW4313485036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.