ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Seizure treatment in children: can intranasal midazolam be used without an atomizer?
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveConvulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children with high morbidity and mortality rates. Intranasal midazolam administration using an atomizer is the preferred treatment method. However, Brazilian pediatric emergencies often require rapid midazolam instillation using syringes. We aimed to compare the plasma midazolam levels in children who received intranasal medication with an atomizer and those who received medication via rapid instillation using only a syringe to treat seizures.
methodsThis exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2022 and March 2024 at the emergency department of a hospital in Southern Brazil. Thirteen children with tonic-clonic status epilepticus received intranasal midazolam via either an atomizer or syringe, at similar dosages. The peak plasma midazolam concentrations, measured approximately 10 min following intranasal administration, were compared between the groups.
resultsNo significant difference was observed in the plasma midazolam concentrations (ng/mL) between the syringe and atomizer groups (median and interquartile range: 148.8 [126.3-293.7] ng/mL versus 133.3 [76.4-176.3] ng/mL; p=0.414), as well as in the time from administration to sampling (8.0 [7.75-10.0] min versus 9.5 [6.75-10.0] min; p=0.710) or in weight-adjusted dose (0.48 [0.44-0.50] mg/kg versus 0.49 [0.47-0.56] mg/kg; p=0.414).
conclusionThis study is the first to validate the common Brazilian practice of using syringes alone for rapid nasal midazolam delivery during pediatric emergencies. Future studies should elucidate the clinical outcomes of this approach.
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.