ArticleJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Intramuscular ketamine provides better sedation and scan conditions in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A single-blinded observational study.
Article in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to compare the quality of sedation provided by intravenous (i.v.) and intramuscular (im) ketamine for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: This study was a non-randomized, single-blinded, and prospective observational study. After receiving approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, a total of 108 children aged 2-7 years were divided into two groups, with 54 children in each group. In the i.v. group, children received ketamine at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg intravenously, while in the im group, children received ketamine at a dose of 4 mg/kg intramuscularly. If a Ramsay sedation score of 6 (RSS-6) was not achieved, half of the loading dose of ketamine was repeated. In both groups, rescue propofol boluses of 1 mg/kg intravenously were administered whenever the child moved. The primary outcome measure was the quality of sedation, which was assessed by a blinded radiologist. The time taken to reach RSS-6, the number of rescue propofol boluses, the total time wasted in taking repeat sequences, and the time required to achieve a modified Aldrete score of 9 (MAS-9) were recorded. Results: The im group demonstrated significantly better sedation quality. In the i.v. group, the time to achieve RSS-6 was significantly shorter, but it required more rescue propofol boluses to maintain sedation. The i.v. group also experienced a notable increase in the total time wasted during repeat sequences. On the other hand, the i.v. group exhibited a shorter time to reach MAS-9 compared to the im group. Conclusion: The im group showed superior sedation quality when compared to the i.v. group. However, it is important to consider that the im group experienced a longer recovery time.
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.