Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37817075›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023

Oral midazolam vs. intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam for sedation of pediatric outpatients: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Juan Nie, Chanchan Chen, Jing Xie, Guicong Ding

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy of Midazolam in Outpatient Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Pooled it
  4. Application of oral midazolam for preoperative sedation in pediatric tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy and its effects on emergence delirium.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Juan NieShenzhen Children's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenzhen, 518026, China.
Chanchan ChenShenzhen Children's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenzhen, 518026, China.
Jing XieShenzhen Children's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenzhen, 518026, China.
Guicong DingShenzhen Children's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenzhen, 518026, China. dgc_67@sina.com.
Shenzhen Children's Hospital · CNChina Medical University · CNStomatology Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModerate to deep sedation is required for dental treatment of children with dental anxiety. Midazolam is the most commonly used sedative, whereas intranasal dexmedetomidine is increasingly used in pediatric sedation.

objectiveThe aim of this trial was to compare the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam alone with that of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus oral midazolam during dental treatment of children with dental anxiety.

designIn total, 83 children (aged 3-12 years) scheduled to undergo dental sedation were randomized to receive oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal placebo, or oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) plus intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg). The primary outcome was the rate of successful sedation for dental treatment. Secondary outcomes were the onset time and adverse events during and after treatment. Data analyses involved descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests.

resultsThe rate of successful sedation was significantly higher in combination group (P = 0.007), although the sedation onset time was significantly longer in combination group (17.5 ± 2.4 min) than in monotherapy group (15.7 ± 1.8) (P = 0.003). No children required medical intervention or oxygen therapy for hemodynamic disturbances, and the incidences of adverse events had no significant difference between groups (P = 0.660).

conclusionCombined treatment with oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and intranasal dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg) is more significantly effective for managing the behavior of non-cooperative children during dental treatment, compared to oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100042300)

trial registrationChiCTR2100042300, Clinical trial first registration date: 17/01/2021.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaDexmedetomidineAdministration, IntranasalChildHumansHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamOutpatientsDexmedetomidineHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamDental anxietyDexmedetomidineMidazolamPediatric dentistrySedation

Identifiers

PMID37817075
PMCPMC10563331
OpenAlexW4387500776

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.