SynthesisCJEM2025
Evaluating the safety of procedural sedation in emergency department settings among the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in CJEM, 2025. 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
- Retrospective evaluation of intraoperative adverse events among pediatric dental patients undergoing deep sedation: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric emergency department (ED) settings by investigating the incidence of cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events associated with different sedation medications.
methodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive database search for randomized controlled trials was performed across ten databases from January 2005 to June 2024. Our inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials involving children under 18 years old undergoing pediatric sedation and analgesia in the ED. Data on medication types, dosages, administration routes, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. Primary endpoints included cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events.
resultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2,302 procedural sedations. The most common adverse events were vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia, which occurred in 104.9 [95% CI = 76.9-132.9], 37.5 [95% CI = 20.6-54.4], 38.3 [95% CI = 23.9-52.6] of each 1000 sedations, respectively. Other adverse events included apnea, hypotension, and the need for bag-valve mask ventilation, which occurred in 8.6 [95% CI: 3.5-13.6], 9.3 [95% CI: -1.4 to 20.1], and 13.5 [95% CI: 3.2-23.8] of each 1,000 sedations, respectively. Severe adverse events were rare, with no reported instances of intubation and only one case of laryngospasm. Subgroup analyses revealed varying incidence rates of adverse events across different sedation protocols, with ketamine and its combinations showing higher rates of specific respiratory complications.
conclusionsProcedural sedation in pediatric EDs is generally safe, with a low incidence of adverse events, such as vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia. Life-threatening respiratory adverse events are extremely rare. Our findings thus support the careful selection and monitoring of sedation protocols to minimize risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39522109What 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.