SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Midazolam infusions for therapeutic management of pediatric refractory status epilepticus: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacovigilance and toxicological studies on safety signals associated with the combined use of propofol and midazolam.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aim to determine the optimal dosing of midazolam continuous intravenous infusions for the treatment of pediatric refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Data sources: We searched Medline ALL, Embase, Embase Classic, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science in March 2023 and again in February 2024. Study selection: Randomized and non-randomized studies involving pediatric patients who received continuous midazolam for the treatment of RSE were eligible. Two authors independently conducted screening, full-text review, and data extraction. All methods followed PRISMA reporting guidelines. A narrative data synthesis was performed due to data heterogeneity. Data extraction and synthesis: Nineteen studies (448 patients) proved eligible; 3 were randomized control trials, while 16 were non-randomized studies. All studies had concerns regarding the risk of bias. Overall, midazolam aborted seizures in 363/448 (81%) participants, with mean effective doses of 1.7-13.0 μg/kg/min (0.17-0.78 mg/kg/h). The remaining 85 participants (19%) who did not achieve seizure cessation received maximum doses of 1.7-32.0 μg/kg/min (0.17-1.92 mg/kg/h) prior to transitioning to another agent. Only 4 studies specified that boluses were given with each titration. Twelve studies reported that seizure cessation occurred at a mean time of 1.4-546.0 min (range 0-720 min) after midazolam initiation. In 8 of these studies, effective midazolam doses clustered at 2.0-5.0 μg/kg/min (0.12-0.30 mg/kg/h), with seizure cessation occurring within 10-70 min in 204/221 (92%) participants. Treatment-associated adverse events included intubation in 42/221 (19%) and hypotension requiring fluids or no intervention in 18/221 (8%). The studies did not differentiate between intubations performed as part of the study protocol or prior to midazolam infusion initiation nor did they specify whether hypotension was related to the co-administration of phenytoin or phenobarbital. Conclusion: Data supporting midazolam continuous infusion dosing are limited and heterogeneous. Our findings suggest a potential therapeutic window at rates of 2.0-5.0 μg/kg/min (0.12-0.30 mg/kg/h), with limited adverse risks. Earlier seizure cessation may be achieved by targeting this therapeutic window by starting treatment with higher doses than the typically used 1.0 μg/kg/min (0.06 mg/kg/h) or by rapidly escalating the dose.
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.