ArticleAnesthesia progress2026
Assessing Pediatric Sedation Using Patient-Centered Outcomes.
Article in Anesthesia progress, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate pediatric dental sedation success using patient-centered outcomes overall and for behavior, safety, and treatment. Methods: A cross-sectional study used existing clinical data of children 24 to 60 months of age undergoing first-time sedations (2015-2020) at a children's hospital. Outcomes included behavior success (Frankl score 3-4), safety success (vital signs maintained within 2 SDs of age- and sex-based norms), and treatment success. Overall success was defined as success in at least 2 subcategories. Descriptive statistics, bivariate comparisons, and multiple variable logistic regression were performed. Results: In 824 subjects (52.3% female, median age 36 months), overall sedation success was 69.3% (behavior, 49.0%; safety, 79.5%; and treatment, 62.1%). Number of medications (1 vs ≥2) did not affect any outcome measures of success. However, oral vs intranasal midazolam alone had higher behavioral (59.4% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and safety (85.6% vs 76.1%; P = .006) success rates. Age (OR, 95% CI; 1.75, 1.43-2.14; P < .001), male sex (5.53, 1.15-2.18; P = .01), and cooperative presedation behavior (1.79, 1.27-2.53; P = .001) significantly increased the odds of overall success. Conclusion: Overall sedation success was approximately 69.3%. Combination regimens were not associated with increased measures of success. Older age, male sex, and cooperative presedation behavior all predicted overall success.
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.