ReviewVeterinary evidence
Intranasal midazolam as an alternative to rectal diazepam for management of canine status epilepticus.
Review in Veterinary evidence. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PICO question: In canine patients in status epilepticus, is intranasal midazolam as effective as rectal diazepam for controlling seizures? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: One study was found-a multicentre randomised open-label clinical trial comparing intranasal midazolam and rectal diazepam in canine patients. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: The study critically appraised in this summary indicated that intranasal midazolam is effective in achieving seizure control in canine patients, with tolerable safety margins. Mild adverse effects associated with benzodiazepine administration such as sedation and drowsiness were noted, but there were no reports of serious adverse events related to the use of intranasal midazolam. Conclusion: Intranasal midazolam appears to be safe and effective for achieving seizure control in canine patients, both in terms of efficacy and speed of onset, and is a suitable first-line treatment option for status epilepticus, especially when intravenous access is not rapidly available. Patients should be monitored after drug administration for development of adverse effects, including sedation, sneezing, and nasal irritation. A nasal mucosal atomisation device may be used to enhance bioavailability of the drug, improving efficacy.
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.