ArticleItalian journal of pediatrics2025
Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency setting in community hospitals in Italy: current status and challenges.
Article in Italian journal of pediatrics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated the use of mild procedural sedation/analgesia in children at community hospitals to describe current practices and identify challenges to its effective implementation.
methodsCross-sectional survey among all medical and nursing staff of the Paediatric, Emergency, Anesthesiology and Surgical Units of four secondary care hospitals in Italy, in the years 2021-2022.
resultsThe response rate was 80% (range across centers 57%-100%); 346 complete questionnaires were analyzed (52.6% physicians; 47.4% nurses). Overall, procedural pain in children was considered a relevant topic by 90.8% of staff. Procedural sedation/analgesia was considered helpful for procedural success (97.4%) and for improving children's experience of pain/anxiety (98.6%). However, 47.7% were not satisfied with the management of procedural pain/anxiety at their workplace and 56.9% reported a lack of adequate knowledge. In fact, only 22.8% demonstrated adequate knowledge on fasting times and 39.6% on correct patient monitoring during procedural sedation. From a pharmacological perspective, midazolam was the most accessible (80.9%) and used (58.7%) medication, while intranasal fentanyl and nitrous oxide were less available (15.3% and 2.9% respectively) and used (7.2% and 2.6% respectively). Procedural sedation was generally practiced by anesthesiologists (65.9%). Overall, 91.9% of respondents performed/participated in < 4 pediatric sedations per month. For 64.3% lack of training represented the greatest barrier to pediatric sedation/analgesia implementation.
conclusionsDespite staff awareness about the importance of pediatric procedural sedation/analgesia, lack of specific knowledge and training, as well as limited availability of sedative/analgesic medications represent current challenges to procedural sedation implementation in community hospitals without a pediatric emergency room.
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.