ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental immunology2025
Meta-analysis of the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental immunology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a meta-analysis on the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.
methodsRelevant literature on the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing bronchoscopy was searched in both Chinese and English databases.
resultsA total of 19 studies published between 2012 and 2024 were included, involving 38 groups and 2,339 patients. Meta-analysis of continuous variables from fifteen studies reported no statistically significant difference in systolic blood pressure between the study group and the control group (MD = -0.27, 95% CI: -2.16 to 1.61, Z = -0.28, P = 0.78). Similarly, eight studies showed no significant difference in heart rate between the study group and the control group (MD = -0.62, 95% CI: -2.67 to 1.43, Z = -0.59, P = 0.55). Twelve studies demonstrated significantly higher oxygen saturation (SaO2) levels in the study group compared to the control group (MD = 1.88, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.20, Z = 2.79, P = 0.01). Nine studies indicated that sedation satisfaction was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (MD = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.16 to 4.70, Z = 3.25, P < 0.01). Ten studies assessed sedation scores, showing no statistically significant difference between groups (MD = 0.32, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.67, Z = 1.82, P = 0.07). Awakening time, reported in eight studies, also showed no significant difference (MD = -2.70, 95% CI: -5.50 to 0.09, Z = -1.89, P = 0.06). Six studies reported VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) scores, showing a statistically significant difference (MD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.08, Z = -2.39, P = 0.02). Meta-analysis of dichotomous variables from fourteen studies showed no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (OR = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.29, Z = -0.49, P = 0.62). Meta-regression analysis suggested that heterogeneity mainly originated from differences in study type and methodology (P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth midazolam and dexmedetomidine demonstrate good sedative effects during bronchoscopy, and their use should be tailored to individual patient conditions.
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.