ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026
A multicentre survey of Australian intensivists on optimal use of midazolam for sedation.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Midazolam is widely used for sedation in intensive care units (ICUs). Emerging evidence links benzodiazepines with prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased delirium, and longer ICU stays. Clear guidance defining the role of midazolam in modern practice remains limited, and its use is largely clinician dependent. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe contemporary Australian intensivist opinions regarding indications, patient and disease modifiers, titration, and weaning strategies for midazolam infusions. Participants: Australian ICU specialists and fellows were included. Design: We conducted a national cross-sectional self-administered survey. A 73-item questionnaire using case vignettes and Likert-scale responses assessed first-line and second-line indications, modifiers influencing use, and cessation strategies for midazolam infusions. Strong Agreement/Disagreement was defined Results: Sixty-one clinicians responded. No first-line indications for midazolam use reached strong agreement. Respondents strongly disagreed with midazolam use as first-line sedation in agitation (90.1%, n = 55/61), acute respiratory distress syndrome (81.6% n = 49/60), positional restrictions (83.6%, n = 51/61), and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (91.6%, n = 55/60). Strong agreement supported discontinuing midazolam when commenced prior to ICU admission (82%, n = 50/61). Strong agreement supported midazolam use as second-line sedation in traumatic brain injury (90%, n = 54/60) and status epilepticus (98.3%). No agreement was achieved for patient or disease modifiers, demonstrating substantial practice variability. For weaning, there was strong agreement that midazolam should be the first sedative ceased when used with other agents (90%, n = 54/60) and that tapering was unnecessary with infusions shorter than 48 h (80%, n = 47/59). Conclusions: Australian ICU practitioners report being selective with the use of midazolam and convey it is primarily reserved for use as a second-line agent in traumatic brain injury and status epilepticus. Persistent heterogeneity highlights the need for clearer guidance on selective use and weaning in modern ICU practice.
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.