ArticlePediatric research2026
Analgesia and sedation in premature infants receiving invasive ventilation: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. 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.
- Pharmacological therapy of neonatal analgosedation: current status, dilemmas, and perspectives.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPremature neonates often require mechanical ventilation during intensive care. However, there is a lack of clinical consensus on the provision, type, and dosage of analgosedatives. The purpose of this scoping review is to assess the risks and benefits of providing analgesic and sedative drugs to ventilated premature infants.
methodsWe sourced primary empirical research reporting outcomes related to the use of pharmacological analgesics and sedatives in ventilated premature infants. We included articles published in any language in peer-reviewed journals before February 2024 from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. We present the overall study characteristics, and the reported risks and benefits of analgosedatives within drug sub-groups.
results80 studies were included in the scoping review. Morphine was the most studied drug (39 studies), followed by fentanyl (19 studies). Midazolam (8 studies) and dexmedetomidine (3 studies) were the most frequently studied sedatives. Analgesic efficacy was more consistently reported for fentanyl than morphine. The sedative effect of opioids was rarely assessed. Respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neurological and neurodevelopmental risks were unclear for all opioids. Alternative synthetic opioids and midazolam appear to be associated with significant risks in the absence of clear benefits. Dexmedetomidine shows encouraging but limited results and merits further investigation as an opioid-sparing adjunct.
conclusionAt present, fentanyl appears to have the best efficacy and safety profile for analgosedation in this patient population. This scoping review will support clinicians in their analgosedative management of ventilated premature infants and identifies research gaps and priorities. IMPACT: This systematic scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of the evidence of the risks and benefits of analgesics and sedatives in ventilated premature infants. Although morphine is the most extensively studied and used drug, its analgesic effect has been less consistently reported than that of fentanyl. Sedation has rarely been assessed and dexmedetomidine seems a promising sedative adjunct as midazolam use is not supported by evidence.
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.