ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2025
Intranasal Dexmedetomidine vs. Oral Midazolam in Pediatric Emergence Agitation Management Following Anesthesia; A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emergence agitation (EA) occurs shortly after emergence from anesthesia in pediatric patients causing disorientation, restlessness, and non-purposeful movement. This study aimed to compare intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX) and oral midazolam in managing EA in pediatric patients scheduled for neurosurgical procedures. Methods: This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 50 pediatric patients who underwent neurosurgical procedure in an educational hospital between March and June 2024. One group received intranasal DEX (2 mcg/kg) and other group received oral midazolam (1 mg/kg of midazolam) before induction of anesthesia. The rate of EA as well as vital signs changes were compared between the two groups using statistical analysis. Results: 50 participants were enrolled in the study and randomly divided to DEX and midazolam groups (25 participants in each group). The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.538); sex (p = 0.417); pre-operation heart rate (p = 0.675); systolic (p = 0.226) and diastolic (p = 0.753) blood pressure; and pre-operative mean arterial blood pressure (p = 0.634). Among all participants, 13 (26.00%) patients showed signs of EA after extubation (2 patients (8.00%) in DEX group and 11 (44.00%) patients in midazolam group; p = 0.004). Regrading vital signs, only the decrease in heart rate after extubation in the DEX group was significantly greater than that observed in the midazolam group (-9.28±12.88 vs. -2.48±8.23, respectively; p = 0.0310). The number needed to treat (NNT), relative risk reduction (RRR), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of using intranasal DEX in management of EA were 2.77 (95%confidence interval (CI): 1.72-7.19), 81.8% (95%CI: 26.0%-95.5%), and 36.0% (95%CI: 13.9%-58.1%) respectively. Conclusion: Intranasal DEX compare to oral midazolam demonstrated superior efficacy in managing postoperative EA in pediatric patients.
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.