↓ Skip to main content

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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 49 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 159 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 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 39 25%
Unknown 26 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 36 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#718,567
of 14,559,106 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,134
of 11,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,255
of 349,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,559,106 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 11,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 349,936 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 92% 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 72% of its contemporaries.