MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit

2012· review· en· W4253691969 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Taddio, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMidazolamSedationCochrane LibraryAdverse effectNeonatal intensive care unitRelative riskSedativeRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPeriventricular leukomalaciaIntensive careAnesthesiaConfidence intervalPediatricsIntensive care medicineGestational ageInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proper sedation for neonates undergoing uncomfortable procedures may reduce stress and avoid complications. Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is increasingly used in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). However, its effectiveness as a sedative in neonates has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether intravenous midazolam infusion is an effective sedative, as evaluated by behavioural or physiological measurements, or both, for critically ill neonates undergoing intensive care and to assess clinically significant short- and long-term adverse effects associated with its use. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a literature search according to the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group search strategy. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of intravenous midazolam use in neonates were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (1985 to 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012), CINAHL (1981 to 2012), reference lists of published studies, personal files, and abstracts published in The Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting Abstract Archives from 1990 to 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of intravenous midazolam infusion in infants aged 28 days or less for sedation were selected for review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding the primary outcome of level of sedation were abstracted. Secondary outcomes such as intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), death, length of NICU stay, and adverse effects associated with midazolam were assessed. When appropriate, meta-analyses were performed using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for categorical variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included in the review. Using different sedation scales, each study showed a statistically significantly higher sedation level in the midazolam group compared to the placebo group. However, since none of the sedation scales used have been validated in preterm infants, the effectiveness of midazolam in this population could not be ascertained. One study showed a statistically significant higher incidence of adverse neurological events (death, grade III or IV IVH, PVL), and meta-analysis of data from two studies showed a statistically significant longer duration of NICU stay in the midazolam group compared to the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to promote the use of intravenous midazolam infusion as a sedative for neonates undergoing intensive care. This review raises concerns about the safety of midazolam in neonates. Further research on the effectiveness and safety of midazolam in neonates is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207