Intranasal midazolam for procedural distress in children in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Intranasal (IN) midazolam is the most common anxiolytic for children in the emergency department (ED), but evidence of benefit is conflicting. We synthesized the evidence on IN midazolam for procedural distress in children undergoing ED painful procedures. METHODS: We included trials involving painful ED procedures in children 0-18 years involving IN midazolam. Primary outcome was procedural distress. We summarized results using Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," and "unfavorable" (p < 0.05), supporting IN midazolam or comparator, respectively, or "indeterminate" (unable to judge). Where possible, we pooled results using meta-analysis. Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and GRADE system. RESULTS: We included 41 trials (n = 2973 participants). Thirty trials involved intravenous insertion. IN midazolam was superior to placebo (RR = 7.2; 95% CI: 3.43, 15.25; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). However, 56-90% of the IN midazolam group resisted the procedure. Focusing on the three trials that used validated measures, IN midazolam was "neutral" versus IN ketamine and either "neutral" or "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in the proportion of children with a satisfactory distress score between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.73; 2 trials; I2 = 53%), IN ketamine (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.25; 6 trials; I2 = 0%), or IN dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.17, 1.05; 3 trials; I2 = 84%). Ten trials involved laceration repair. IN midazolam was "favorable" versus placebo; however, both groups scored in the anxious range. There was no difference in distress between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI:-0.32, 0.34; 2 trials; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3E) [64,65]. Using validated instruments, IN midazolam was "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine but "favorable" versus oral diazepam and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited methodologically rigorous evidence that IN midazolam is better than placebo for IV insertion and laceration repair. At the doses studied, preliminary evidence suggests that IN dexmedetomidine may be superior to IN midazolam for both IV insertion and laceration repair.

ABSTRAIT: OBJECTIFS: Le midazolam intranasal (IN) est l'anxiolytique le plus courant chez les enfants du service des urgences (DE), mais les preuves des avantages sont contradictoires. Nous avons synthétisé les preuves sur l'IN midazolam pour la détresse procédurale chez les enfants subissant des procédures douloureuses d'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons inclus des essais impliquant des procédures douloureuses d'urgence chez les enfants de 0 à 18 ans impliquant IN midazolam. Le résultat principal était la détresse procédurale. Nous avons résumé les résultats en utilisant la classification de Tricco et coll. de « neutre ¼ (p 0,05), « favorable ¼, « défavorable ¼ (p < 0,05), à l'appui du midazolam IN ou du comparateur, respectivement, ou « indéterminé ¼ (incapable de juger). Dans la mesure du possible, nous avons regroupé les résultats en utilisant la méta-analyse. La qualité méthodologique des preuves a été évaluée à l'aide de l'outil de risque de biais de Cochrane Collaboration et du système GRADE. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 41 essais (n = 2973 participants). Trente essais portaient sur l'insertion intraveineuse. L'IN midazolam était supérieur au placebo (RR = 7,2; IC à 95 % : 3,43,15,25; 3 essais; I2 = 0 %). Cependant, 56 à 90 % du groupe IN midazolam a résisté à la procédure. En se concentrant sur les trois essais qui ont utilisé des mesures validées, IN midazolam était « neutre ¼ par rapport à IN kétamine et « neutre ¼ ou « défavorable ¼ par rapport à IN dexmedetomidine. Il n'y avait pas de différence dans la proportion d'enfants ayant un score de détresse satisfaisant entre IN midazolam et midazolam oral (RR = 1,1; IC à 95 % : 0,74,1,73; 2 essais; I2 = 53 %), IN kétamine (RR = 1,1; IC à 95 % : 0,91,1,25; 6 essais; I2 = 0 %) ou IN dexmedetomidine (RR = 0,4; IC à 95 % : 0,17,1,05; 3 essais; I2 = 84 %). Dix essais portaient sur la réparation de la lacération. L'IN midazolam était « favorable ¼ par rapport au placebo, mais les deux groupes ont obtenu des résultats dans la fourchette de l'anxiété. Il n'y avait pas de différence de détresse entre le midazolam IN et le midazolam oral (SMD = 0,01; IC à 95 %:-0,32,0,34; 2 essais; I2 = 0 %) (figure 3E)64,65. À l'aide d'instruments validés, l'IN midazolam était « défavorable ¼ par rapport à l'IN dexmedetomidine, mais « favorable ¼ par rapport au diazépam oral et au placebo. CONCLUSION: Il y a peu de preuves méthodologiques rigoureuses que l'IN midazolam est meilleur que le placebo pour l'insertion IV et la réparation de lacération. Aux doses étudiées, des preuves préliminaires suggèrent que l'IN dexmedetomidine peut être supérieure à l'IN midazolam pour l'insertion IV et la réparation de lacération.

Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality. METHODS: We searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Of 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting.