Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917619›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Comparison of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray with traditional intranasal dexmedetomidine drops for sedation in preschool children: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Qi-Qi Jin, Wei-Cha Cai, Ying-Feng Zhou, Yan-Tong Zhang, Gang Chen, Meng-Ting Xu, Jun Li, Kai-Ming Yuan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Qi-Qi JinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Wei-Cha CaiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Ying-Feng ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yan-Tong ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Gang ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Meng-Ting XuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Jun LiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Kai-Ming YuanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Ministry of Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the efficacy and acceptability of a ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray (DS) versus traditional drops administered by syringe (DD) in pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery. Patients and Methods: Eighty-six preschool children were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Children were randomly assigned to receive either DS or DD. For children weighing between 10.5 and 18.5 kg, a dexmedetomidine dosage of 30 μg (two sprays) was administered, while those weighing between 18.5 and 25.5 kg received 45 μg (three sprays). In the DD group, dexmedetomidine was administered at a dose of 2 μg/kg based on body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of children achieving a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) score of ≥3 within 30 min. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of intranasal medication, anxiety at parental separation and prior to induction, and compliance with induction. Results: A total of 83 cases were analyzed. The proportion of children achieving an RSS score of ≥3 within 30 min was similar between the DS and DD groups (90.7% vs. 77.5%, respectively). However, the acceptance score was significantly better in the DS group (mean difference [95%]: -0.9 [-1.267 to -0.5325], P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of successful child-parent separation (88.4% vs. 85%) or satisfactory anxiolytic effect prior to induction (95.3% vs. 92.5%). Compliance with induction was comparable, with 53.5% in the DS group and 40.0% in the DD group demonstrating "optimal" compliance. Conclusion: Both intranasal spray and syringe drop methods were highly effective in providing sedation and anxiolysis, but the ready-to-use intranasal dexmedetomidine spray was more acceptable to children, offering a viable alternative to the syringe method. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2400089374.

Indexed as

atomizationm-YPASpediatricpreoperative anxietyRamsay sedation scale

Identifiers

PMID39917619
PMCPMC11799867

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.