The influence of clonidine on oral ketamine-midazolam premedication in intellectually disabled patients indicated for dental procedures: double-blind comparison of two sedation regimes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental procedures on intellectually disabled patients represent a clinical challenge. The oral administration of sedating drugs can remediate the problems with cooperation and enable the medical procedures to take place. Standard guidelines are lacking for oral sedation of the intellectually disabled. OBJECTIVE: To compare two oral combinations of sedating drugs in terms of time to the onset and achievement of full sedation, vital signs, behavioral measures and safety. METHODS: In a group of 29 intellectually disabled patients we compared two oral combinations for analgosedation: ketamine (5 mg/kg) - clonidine 2 µg/kg - midazolam 0.3 mg/kg (N=17) or ketamine 5 mg/kg - midazolam 0.3 mg/kg (N= 12 patients). Drugs were dissolved in a sweet drink. RESULTS: Full sedation was achieved within 25 min. in 27 patients and serious side effects were not detected. Clonidine in combination with ketamine and midazolam did not exert any significant effect by means of the onset of sedation, time to the achievement of full sedation, vital signs and behavioral measures of sedation (Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale) and agitation (Pittsburgh Agitation Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to document that oral administration of ketamine and midazolam in low doses represents a safe and effective method of premedication in intellectually disabled patients indicated for dental procedures. Clonidine co-administration did not exert any substantial benefit and should be left out in this clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".