ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Protocolized vs. Conventional Sedation Among Mechanically Ventilated Children in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit - A Pre-Post Study.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocolized vs. Conventional Sedation Among Mechanically Ventilated Children in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit - A Pre-Post Study: Correspondence-2.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Protocolized vs. Conventional Sedation Among Mechanically Ventilated Children in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit - A Pre-Post Study: Authors' Reply-2.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Protocolized vs. Conventional Sedation Among Mechanically Ventilated Children in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit - A Pre-Post Study: Correspondence.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Protocolized vs. Conventional Sedation Among Mechanically Ventilated Children in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit - A Pre-Post Study: Authors' Reply.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the feasibility and impact of a nurse-driven sedation protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), sedative and opioid use, and related adverse events in a resource-limited setting.
methodsIt is a single center, prospective, before and after study, conducted between January 2018 and December 2019 in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. A total of 180 patients, aged between 1 mo and 12 y, requiring MV for > 24 h were included in the study. Outcomes were compared before and after the introduction of sedation protocol.
resultsThe duration of MV was not significantly different between the two groups [median (IQR) 82 (50–167) vs. 94 (55–168) h, p = 0.56]. Daily [median IQR 3.1 (2.2–4.8) vs. 2.2 (1.6–3.3) mg/kg/d, p = 0.001] and cumulative doses of midazolam [median (IQR) 9.3 (3.8–21.9) vs. 7.8 (3.6–15.8) mg/kg, p = 0.001] were significantly lower in the protocol group. The cumulative opioid dose, expressed as morphine equivalent (mg/kg), was also significantly lower in the protocol group compared to the conventional group [median (IQR) 5.6 (2–13) vs. 1.2 (0.6–2.6), p < 0.001]. The number of patients who developed significant withdrawal symptoms was lower in the protocol group [26% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.005)]. No significant difference was observed in other secondary outcomes between the two groups.
conclusionsThe implementation of a predominantly nurse-driven protocol was feasible and safe in a resource-limited setting. It did not significantly affect the duration of MV, compared with conventional group. Protocol implementation was associated with reduced cumulative doses of midazolam and opioids, as well as a lower incidence of withdrawal symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41692933What 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.