ReviewCureus2023
The Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Midazolam Nasal Spray in Patients With Seizure Clusters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled clinical trial of intranasal versus subcutaneous midazolam for agitation in terminal illness (MinTU study).Palliative medicine · 2026Trial
- Formulation considerations in enhancing olfactory mucosal deposition for nose-to-brain drug delivery.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Review
- Immediate Treatment of Seizure Clusters: A Conceptual Roadmap to Expedited Seizure Management.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS) is a new emerging rescue medication that suppresses epileptic seizures. Until now, few studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, and clinical trials have shown that midazolam nasal spray could become an effective and promising alternative to conventional routes (intravenous {IV}/rectal). Therefore, we thought of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of midazolam (MDZ) to assess its potential outcomes. The analysis was also evaluated based on the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of midazolam nasal spray. A systematic literature search was carried out through various databases to identify studies of accounted outcomes of midazolam nasal spray (MDZ-NS). Randomized and other studies of patients (12 years or older) with seizure clusters (SCs) were included. A total of three full-text articles were considered for systematic review and meta-analysis as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 5 mg MDZ-NS was observed to be equally safe as a placebo, and the risk ratio (RR) was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.53). After the administration of MDZ-NS, either the patients remained seizure-free for six hours or more or the seizure was terminated within 10 minutes and had no recurrence between 10 minutes and six hours. The risk ratio (RR) obtained was 1.54 (95% CI: 1.25-1.91). The result was statistically significant as a higher success rate was observed with the use of 5 mg midazolam nasal spray compared to placebo (p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not observed in the results of the included studies (inconsistency index {I
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.