ArticleDigestion2026
Continuous versus Intermittent Midazolam Sedation in Balloon-Assisted Enteroscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.
Article in Digestion, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSedation protocols for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) are not yet standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between continuous infusion and intermittent bolus administration of midazolam for sedation during BAE. The study hypothesis was that continuous infusion would provide a greater proportion of time under conscious sedation than would intermittent bolus administration.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 15 institutions of the National Hospital Organization in Japan. Patients scheduled for diagnostic or therapeutic BAE were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion or intermittent bolus administration of intravenous midazolam. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time under conscious sedation, defined as a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3-4. Secondary endpoints included body movements causing procedure interruption, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, total drug dosage, adverse events, and termination of the procedure.
resultsOf 76 enrolled patients (39 continuous infusion group, 37 intermittent bolus group), one from each group discontinued before treatment, leaving 74 patients (38 continuous group, 36 intermittent bolus group) for analysis. The proportion of time under conscious sedation was comparable between groups (mean ± SD: 0.637 ± 0.315 vs. 0.609 ± 0.272, p = 0.721). However, the continuous infusion group showed a lower incidence of body movements causing procedure interruption (7.9% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.091). The total midazolam dose was higher in the continuous infusion group, whereas the incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two groups.
conclusionContinuous infusion of midazolam did not demonstrate superiority over intermittent bolus administration with regard to the proportion of time under conscious sedation. However, continuous infusion suppressed body movements during BAE without increasing adverse events; thus, it could be one of the feasible sedation options for BAE in clinical practice.
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.