ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
International Guidelines on Conscious Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry: A Comparative Analysis and Evidence Mapping Study.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conscious sedation is widely used in pediatric dentistry to manage dental anxiety, behavioral difficulties, and systemic diseases that compromise patient compliance with dental care. Despite its clinical importance, international recommendations vary considerably.
objectiveTo conduct a comparative analysis and evidence mapping of international clinical practice guidelines on conscious sedation in pediatric dentistry.
methodsA comparative guideline analysis and evidence mapping study was performed. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, TRIP, and OpenGrey up to December 2023. Guidelines issued by recognized professional or governmental organization addressing conscious sedation in pediatric dentistry were included. Predefined domains were analyzed, including indications, contraindications, pharmacological agents, dosages, routes of administration, monitoring, discharge criteria, and professional training. Data were synthesized descriptively and graphically mapped to illustrate coverage patterns.
resultsTwelve international guidelines were included. Complete convergence (100%) was observed in core safety domains, such as patient assessment, monitoring, and professional training. A high agreement was found for discharge criteria (91.67%) and contraindications (83.33%). However, substantial variability emerged in pharmacological protocols, with only 16.67% of guidelines providing comprehensive drug and dosage descriptions. Routes of administration and emergency equipment recommendations were inconsistently reported, appearing in 66.67% and 50% of guidelines, respectively.
conclusionsAlthough foundational safety principles are consistently addressed, significant heterogeneity persists in pharmacological and procedural recommendations. This variability may contribute to differences in practice and uncertainty among practitioners. Greater international harmonization of guidelines may improve consistency, enhance clinical decision-making, and strengthen patient safety in pediatric dental care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Identifying areas of convergence and variability across international guidelines may support the development of more standardized sedation protocols and promote safer evidence-based clinical practice in pediatric dentistry.
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.