Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38930074›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pediatric Sedation in Dentistry: An Umbrella Review.

Carolina Marques, Mafalda Dinis, Vanessa Machado, João Botelho, Luísa Bandeira Lopes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

Carolina MarquesEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research Center (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.
Mafalda DinisEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research Center (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.
Vanessa MachadoEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research Center (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2503-260X
João BotelhoEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research Center (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1019-8263
Luísa Bandeira LopesEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research Center (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4412-7102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sedation is a depression of a patient's state of consciousness, induced by medications, that can reach different levels of intensity during a medical procedure. Conscious sedation produces a minimally depressed level of consciousness without impairment of the ability to maintain an open airway, of protective reflexes or of responses to verbal and physical stimulation. This umbrella review is aimed at critically assessing the available systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) on sedation in children/adolescents. An electronic database search was conducted that included Pubmed-Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Scielo, Embase, LILACS and TRIP and the scope of which extended until January 2023. The risk of bias (RoB) of SRs was analyzed using the Measurement Tool to Assess SRs criteria 2 (AMSTAR2). Of 998 entries, 37 SRs were included. In terms of methodological quality, eight studies were assessed as having critically low quality, four studies had low quality, nine studies had moderate quality, and sixteen were considered to be of high quality. Based on the current guidelines, the most employed drugs in pediatric dentistry for sedation are nitrous oxide and midazolam; however, the available evidence supporting their use is insufficient and of low/critically low quality. The combined technique is recommended (nitrous oxide (30-50%) + midazolam). The optimal dose of oral midazolam is 0.75 mg/kg. The level of methodological quality of SRs is expected to increase according to the results and future directions of this umbrella review.

Indexed as

conscious sedationmeta-analysispaediatricpediatricpediatric dental procedureprocedural sedationsedationsystematic reviewumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID38930074
PMCPMC11205123

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.