↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002052.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugene Ng, Anna Taddio, Arne Ohlsson

Abstract

Proper sedation for neonates undergoing uncomfortable procedures may reduce stress and avoid complications. Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is used increasingly in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). However, its effectiveness as a sedative in neonates has not been systematically evaluated. Primary objeciveTo assess the effectiveness of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation, as evaluated by behavioural and/or physiological measurements of sedation levels, in critically ill neonates in the NICU. Secondary objectivesTo assess effects of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation on complications including the following.1. Incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)/periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).2. Mortality.3. Occurrence of adverse effects associated with the use of midazolam (hypotension, neurological abnormalities).4. Days of ventilation.5. Days of supplemental oxygen.6. Incidence of pneumothorax.7. Length of NICU stay (days).8. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 16 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 16 June 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 16 June 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We selected for review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation in infants aged 28 days or younger. We abstracted data regarding the primary outcome of level of sedation. We assessed secondary outcomes such as intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, death, length of NICU stay and adverse effects associated with midazolam. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs), and if the RD was statistically significant, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for categorical variables, and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. We assessed heterogeneity by performing the I-squared (I(2)) test. We included in the review three trials enrolling 148 neonates. We identified no new trials for this update. Using different sedation scales, each study showed a statistically significantly higher sedation level in the midazolam group compared with the placebo group. However, none of the sedation scales used have been validated in preterm infants; therefore, we could not ascertain the effectiveness of midazolam in this population. Duration of NICU stay was significantly longer in the midazolam group than in the placebo group (WMD 5.4 days, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.5; I(2) = 0%; two studies, 89 infants). One study (43 infants) reported significantly lower Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores during midazolam infusion than during dextrose (placebo) infusion (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.93 to -1.67). Another study (46 infants) observed a higher incidence of adverse neurological events at 28 days' postnatal age (death, grade III or IV IVH or PVL) in the midazolam group compared with the morphine group (RR 7.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 57.21; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2 to 14) (tests for heterogeneity not applicable). We considered these trials to be of moderate quality according to GRADE assessment based on the following outcomes: mortality during hospital stay, length of NICU stay, adequacy of analgesia according to PIPP scores and poor neurological outcomes by 28 days' postnatal age. Data are insufficient 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Unknown 241 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 14%
Researcher 34 14%
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 55 22%
Unknown 51 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 63 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2021.
All research outputs
#835,125
of 19,001,205 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,026
of 11,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,039
of 374,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,001,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.