ArticleAnesthesia progress2024
Efficacy of Midazolam/Meperidine vs Midazolam/Hydromorphone for Enteral Moderate Sedation in the Pediatric Dental Patient.
Article in Anesthesia progress, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An updated evidence-informed framework for dental sedation: drugs, routes, patient selection, monitoring, and emergency preparedness.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Predictors of hypoxemia during moderate sedation for periodontal surgery: a series of 2,221 sedations.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of midazolam/meperidine (M/M) vs midazolam/hydromorphone (M/H) for enteral moderate sedation along with inhalational sedation in pediatric dental patients.
methodsThis retrospective chart review analyzed the charts of pediatric patients who received dental treatment under enteral moderate sedation with either M/M or M/H in combination with inhalational sedation (nitrous oxide/oxygen) at El Rio Community Health Centers (affiliated with NYU Langone) in Tucson, Arizona, from July 2014 to December 2020. Included subjects were between 2 and 5 years of age, less than 20 kg, and otherwise healthy. In addition to demographic and drug-dosing data, treatment completion, sedation level, behavioral score, overall effectiveness, and sedation duration data were collected and analyzed from each patient's chart.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the 2 drug regimens in treatment completion (P = .89), sedation level (P = .74), and overall effectiveness (P = .70). There was a statistically significant difference in behavior scoring, with the M/H group demonstrating higher scores (P = .04) than the M/M group.
conclusionThe combination of midazolam and hydromorphone may provide an effective alternative to midazolam and meperidine when used with inhalational sedation (nitrous oxide/oxygen) for the moderate sedation of pediatric dental patients.
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.