Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39679137›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2024

Effect of Remimazolam vs Midazolam on Early Postoperative Cognitive Recovery in Elderly Patients Undergoing Dental Extraction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Bing Liu, Peijuan Wang, Lirong Liang, Wei Zhu, Hui Zhang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Is remimazolam a suitable alternative to midazolam for dental sedation?Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Safety of Remimazolam in Vulnerable Populations.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025
    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.

Bing LiuState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Dental Materials and Advanced Manufacture, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, People's Republic of China.
Peijuan WangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Dental Materials and Advanced Manufacture, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, People's Republic of China.
Lirong LiangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Dental Materials and Advanced Manufacture, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, People's Republic of China.
Wei ZhuState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Dental Materials and Advanced Manufacture, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, People's Republic of China.
Hui ZhangState Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shaanxi Engineering Research Center for Dental Materials and Advanced Manufacture, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Elderly patients undergoing dental extraction are particularly susceptible to delayed cognitive recovery after sedation. This study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and midazolam on early postoperative cognitive recovery in elderly patients undergoing dental extraction. Patients and Methods: This was a single-centre randomized controlled study with elderly patients scheduled for receiving dental extraction under sedation of remimazolam (Group R) or midazolam (Group M). The primary outcome was postoperative cognitive recovery, as measured by the Montreal cognitive assessment 5-minute (MoCA 5-minute) 30 min postoperatively (T Results: 106 patients (53 in each group) were eligible for the study. At T Conclusion: Remimazolam sedation significantly improves early postoperative cognitive recovery, leading to expedited hemostasis and a shorter discharge time.

Indexed as

CognitionMidazolamTooth ExtractionAgedAged, 80 and overBenzodiazepinesFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesMalePostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesBenzodiazepinesHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamremimazolamcognitive recoverydental extractionelderly patientsmidazolamremimazolamsedation

Identifiers

PMID39679137
PMCPMC11639880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.