ReviewCureus2023
Intramuscular Versus Intravenous Treatment of Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality with fatal outcomes if not treated well. The goal of this study was to compare the intramuscular and intravenous treatment of individuals with status epilepticus. A search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed publications up to March 1, 2023. Studies were included if the treatment of status epileptics was compared either directly or indirectly between intramuscular and intravenous methods. In addition, relevant papers were manually screened for in the reference lists of the included studies. Non-duplicate articles were identified. Finally, five articles were included in the analysis, of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a retrospective cohort study. The intramuscular midazolam group's time until the first seizure stopped was significantly shorter than the intravenous diazepam group's time (7.8 versus 11.2 minutes, respectively; p = 0.047). Moreover, the percentage of patients admitted was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the intravenous group (p = 0.01), but the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding seizure recurrence, the intramuscular group had fewer incidences of recurrent seizures. Finally, there were no appreciable differences in safety outcomes between the two treatment arms. During the analysis, different outcomes reported after the use of intramuscular and intravenous treatments in managing patients with status epilepticus were categorized. This categorization led to a clear view of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular versus intravenous treatments in managing status epilepticus patients. The information at hand indicates that intramuscular therapy is just as successful as intravenous therapy in treating people with status epilepticus. The availability, adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, cost, and whether it is included in hospital formularies are some of the factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the drug administration technique.
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.