ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Establishing the first ever pediatric procedural sedation clinic in a low-income country: Assessment of the safety and efficacy.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPediatric sedation clinics are rare in low-income countries. Our aim is to describe the establishment of the first-ever pediatric sedation clinic in Ethiopia and provide an assessment of its safety and efficacy over the 5 years since its establishment.
methodsA multi-phase approach was undertaken. In the first phase, we analyzed barriers to procedural pain management through repeated focus group discussions with stakeholders. Subsequently, we conducted a modified sedation provider course from the Society for Pediatric Sedation (SPS) with pre and post-training testing to document course effectiveness. Finally, we developed a procedural sedation clinic at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. In the second phase, we prospectively collected outcome data over a 5-year period from patients receiving procedural sedation at the clinic. This included assessing the efficacy of sedation and documenting any adverse events that occurred during the procedures.
resultOne hundred three providers completed the procedural sedation course. There was a 13.4% improvement in knowledge between baseline and post-course testing. A total of 2,820 patients underwent procedural sedation over the 5-year period from 2016 through 2021, and data selected from 475 (16.8%) patients were analyzed. The most common procedure performed was bone marrow aspiration/biopsy in 384 subjects (80.8%). The most common procedural sedation used was the combination of ketamine and propofol in 60.6%. The mean pain score during the procedure was 0.28/10, which was significantly lower than the pre-procedural pain score (p-value < 0.001). A total of 9 (1.9%) patients had adverse events and there was no mortality.
conclusionBased on our experience, development of a safe and effective sedation clinic is possible in resource-limited settings as evidenced by low procedural pain scores, and low adverse events rates. Provider training based on a modification of the SPS course improved overall procedural sedation knowledge.
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.