SynthesisNeurocritical care2024
Efficacy and Tolerability of Intranasal Midazolam Administration for Antiseizure Treatment in Adults: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2024. 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
- Diagnosis, treatment, and outcome prediction of non-convulsive status epilepticus in unconscious patients in intensive care units.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- Treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in Brazil: a review.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults.
methodsEmbase and Medline literature databases were searched. We included randomized trials and cohort studies (excluding case series) of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) examining in-MDZ administration for epilepsy, epileptic seizures, or status epilepticus published in English between 1985 and 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility based on predefined criteria. The primary outcome was the efficacy of in-MDZ administration, and the secondary outcome was its tolerability. Extracted data included study design, patient characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
resultsA total of 12 studies with 929 individuals treated with in-MDZ were included. Most studies were retrospective, with their number increasing over time. Administered in-MDZ doses ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg per single dose. The mean proportion of successful seizure termination after first in-MDZ administration was 72.7% (standard deviation [SD] 18%), and the proportion of seizure recurrence or persistent seizures ranged from 61 to 75%. Most frequent adverse reactions to in-MDZ were dizziness (mean 23.5% [SD 38.6%]), confusion (one study; 17.4%), local irritation (mean 16.6% [SD 9.6%]), and sedation (mean 12.7% [SD 9.7%]).
conclusionsAdministration of in-MDZ seems promising for the treatment of prolonged epileptic seizures and seizure clusters in adults. Limited evidence suggests that intranasal administration is safe. Further research is warranted because of the heterogeneity of cohorts, the variation in dosages, and the lack of uniformity in defining successful seizure termination.
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.