Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Midazolam is routinely used as preanesthetic medication in pediatric patients. Recently, dexmedetomidine has emerged as an alternative as a premedicant. We aimed to add more evidence about the efficacy and safety of two common routes of administration for pediatric premedication: oral midazolam versus intranasal dexmedetomidine. METHODS: We systematically searched Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving patients ≤ 18 years old undergoing preanesthetic medication and comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with oral midazolam. Risk Ratio (RR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were computed using a random effects model. Trial-sequential analyses were performed to assess inconsistency. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (1,239 patients) were included. Mean age was 5.5 years old, and most procedures were elective. There was no difference in satisfactory induction or mask acceptance (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37; p = 0.11). There was a higher incidence of satisfactory separation from parents in the dexmedetomidine group (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.13-1.74; p = 0.002). Dexmedetomidine was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of emergence agitation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14-0.88; p = 0.02). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were marginally lower in the dexmedetomidine group but without clinical repercussions. CONCLUSION: Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated better separation from parents and lower incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric premedication, without a difference in satisfactory induction. Intranasal dexmedetomidine may be a safe and effective alternative to oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".