↓ Skip to main content

A randomised, double-blind controlled trial of intranasal midazolam for the palliation of dyspnoea in patients with life-limiting disease

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
A randomised, double-blind controlled trial of intranasal midazolam for the palliation of dyspnoea in patients with life-limiting disease
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00520-016-3125-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Hardy, Clare Randall, Eve Pinkerton, Christopher Flatley, Kristen Gibbons, Simon Allan

Abstract

Anxiety is a major component of breathlessness and is often palliated with benzodiazepines. Midazolam is a short-acting water-soluble benzodiazepine with a rapid onset of action and short half-life. Intranasal midazolam had been shown to be of marked clinical benefit in an uncontrolled pilot study for the control of dyspnoea. A blinded randomised controlled study was therefore undertaken across four Australasian palliative care services. All participants received six numbered study nasal spray (SNS) bottles, three of which contained midazolam and three placebo. They were instructed to use one SNS bottle on each day they were breathless, for 6 days within 2 weeks. Dyspnoea scores were recorded before and at set time intervals following the first use of each SNS bottle. Across all SNS bottles, the maximum change of 2.1 on an 11-point numerical rating scale was seen at 60 min. There was no difference in dyspnoea score between the two arms. Approximately 50 % of participants in each arm had a positive response (i.e. ≥2 point change in dyspnoea score from baseline). Anxiety scores at baseline were low. The most common adverse event was local nasal reactions. Intranasal midazolam had no clinical benefit over intranasal placebo for the control of dyspnoea. The low level of anxiety at baseline and dose of active drug delivered may have been important factors. Many participants found the SNS bottles to be a challenging mode of drug delivery. This study confirms the importance of placebo-controlled trials for defining best clinical practise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 25%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Unspecified 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,461,321
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2,551
of 4,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,041
of 298,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#51
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.