Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis of melatonin in comparison with midazolam for anxiety prior to general anaesthesia in children: the MAGIC randomised controlled trial (melatonin for anxiety prior to general anaesthesia in children).
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo date no study has looked at the cost-effectiveness of melatonin for anxiety prior to general anaesthetic in children or young people. The aim of the health economic analysis was to evaluate the within trial cost-effectiveness of melatonin for anxiety in children compared to usual care (midazolam) prior to general anaesthesia in children from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.
methodsThe economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial (MAGIC). Children were individually randomised to receive either melatonin or midazolam for anxiety prior to general anaesthesia. Resource use was collected from case-record forms. Children were followed up at 14 days post-surgery. The main outcome was the incremental cost per successful procedure. The trial was closed early due to recruitment futility, which limited the studies statistical power.
resultsA total of 100 children received the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) treatment, 50 receiving melatonin and 50 receiving midazolam, these were the focus of the health economic analysis. On average, costs over 14 days were lower for those who received melatonin (-£46.20, 95% CI: -£166.14 to £66.74) with a mean incremental difference in procedure success of -0.02 (95% CI –0.08 to 0.004), though there was uncertainty around the results. There was no evidence of either treatment being cost-effective in a cost per QALY analysis using the CHU-9D (-£46.20, 95% CI: -£166.142 to £66.74) with a mean incremental QALY -0.0001 (95% CI –0.0008 to 0.0008). Subgroup analysis was limited to those who underwent head and neck procedures owing to small numbers by subgroup for other procedure types and age group and results were similar to the main analysis.
conclusionsThis is the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of melatonin in comparison with midazolam in children. The results were inconclusive showing no evidence that melatonin was more cost-effective than midazolam. The study closed early owing to issues with recruitment, which reduced the studies statistical power, and this has limited the economic analysis.
trial registrationRegistered with the UK Clinical Study Registry ISRCTN18296119 on 10/01/2019.
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.