ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Dental Treatment and Clinical Efficiency of Midazolam vs Midazolam and Ketamine Combination for Sedation in Young Uncooperative Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravenous esketamine as an adjuvant for sedation/analgesia outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Single-Agent Sedation for Behavioral Management in Pediatric Dentistry: An Umbrella Review of Agents, Routes of Administration, Providers, and Clinical Settings.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of ease in dental treatment using midazolam versus midazolam-ketamine in uncooperative children.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Efficiency of Different Sedation Procedures in Pediatric Dental Procedures: A Clinical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Pharmacologic Sedation-Related Respiratory Complications in Pediatric Dentistry: A Decade-Long Scoping Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To assess and compare the effectiveness of midazolam vs midazolam and ketamine combination in the management of young uncooperative pediatric patients. Materials and methods: The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Out of 98 preliminary records, five studies were selected for analysis. Three hundred forty-six uncooperative children were randomized through the five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a mean age of 5.8 years. Midazolam with ketamine was the most successful combination for delivering rapid and sufficient analgosedation in uncooperative children. The clinical efficiency of midazolam and ketamine combination had an overall success rate of 84% when compared to ketamine and midazolam alone. 50% of children in the midazolam and ketamine group demonstrated calm behavior, compared to 37% in the midazolam group. 44% of the children experienced modest intra and/or postoperative adverse effects that did not necessitate any special treatment. Conclusion: Midazolam and ketamine combination is more efficient than midazolam alone with respect to ease of treatment and clinical efficiency. How to cite this article: Rathi GV, Padawe D, Takate V,
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.