ArticleNeurotrauma reports2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam-Based Sedation on the Need for Intracranial Pressure Lowering Therapies in Traumatic Brain Injury.
Article in Neurotrauma reports, 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.
- A Pharmacological Perspective on Targeting the Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel Subunit αNeurochemical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sedatives play an important role in the management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Benzodiazepines are common for sedation (midazolam-based) but have been discouraged for non-brain-injured patients in the ICU. This study aimed to investigate the effect of midazolam-based sedation versus non-midazolam-based sedation on the need for intracranial pressure (ICP) lowering therapies in patients with sTBI in the ICU. We studied patients with sTBI (Glasgow Coma Sale ≤8) from 14 ICUs in Europe and Australia, who received ICP monitoring and continuous instrumental variable (IV) sedation for at least 24 h. We analyzed the association between sedation strategy and the need for ICP lowering therapies during the first 7 ICU days using a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusted for clinical markers of injury severity. We also analyzed the center as an IV in a random effects model to address potentially unmeasured confounding. Among 227 patients with sTBI, 152 (67%) received midazolam-based sedation. These patients had a lower age and higher median Glasgow Coma Scale on admission compared with 75 patients in the non-midazolam-sedated group. In logistic regression analyses, patients with midazolam-based sedation had higher odds of receiving hyperosmolar therapy (odds ratio [OR]: 3.4, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.6-7.7). This effect could not be confirmed in the instrumental variable analysis (hyperosmolar therapy: OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.1-13.1). The mean ICU length of stay was significantly longer in the midazolam-based sedation group compared with the non-midazolam-based sedation group (19 vs. 13 days, hazards ratio 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4-0.8). Midazolam-based sedation was common for patients with sTBI without a significantly increased need for ICP therapies but an association with longer ICU stay. Larger prospective comparative effectiveness studies are needed regarding sedation strategies in critically ill patients with TBI.
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.