The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complications of sedation with midazolam in the intensive care unit and a comparison with other sedative regimens
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the various complications that have been reported with use of midazolam for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). DATA SOURCES: Publications in scientific literature. DATA EXTRACTION: Computer search of the literature. SYNTHESIS: Sedation is required in the ICU in order for patients to tolerate noxious stimuli, particularly mechanical ventilation. Under- and oversedation can lead to complications. To sedate patients in the ICU, midazolam is commonly administered via titrated, continuous infusions. Cardiorespiratory effects tend to be minimal; however, hypotension can occur in hypovolemic patients. Prolonged sedation after cessation of the midazolam infusion may be caused by altered kinetics of the drug in critically ill patients or by accumulation of active metabolites. In addition, paradoxical and psychotic reactions have been rarely reported. Tolerance and tachyphylaxis may occur, particularly with longer-term infusions (> or = 3 days). Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome has also been associated with high dose/long-term midazolam infusions. Compared with propofol infusions, midazolam infusions have been associated with a decreased occurrence of hypotension but a more variable time course for recovery of function after the cessation of the infusion. Lorazepam is a more cost-effective choice for long-term (> 24 hrs) sedation. CONCLUSION: Continuous infusion midazolam provides effective sedation in the ICU with few complications overall, especially when the dose is titrated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Withdrawal Reaction after Long-Term Therapeutic Use of Benzodiazepines
Busto, U., Sellers, E. M., Naranjo, C. A., Cappell, H., Sanchez-Craig, M., & Sykora, K. (1986) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198610023151403 · Cited by 369
COMPARISON OF PROPOFOL AND MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS
Aitkenhead, A., Willatts, S., Park, G., Collins, C., Ledingham, I., Pepperman, M., David Coates, P., Bodenham, A., Smith, M., & Wallace, P. M. (1989) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90770-8 · Cited by 213
Cited by
BTS/ICS guideline for the ventilatory management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults
Davidson, A. C., Banham, S., Elliott, M., Kennedy, D., Gelder, C., Glossop, A., Church, A. C., Creagh-Brown, B., Dodd, J. W., Felton, T., et al. (2016) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208209 · Cited by 426
Adverse events of procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department
Peña, B. M. G., & Krauss, B. (1999) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(99)80050-x · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Shafer, A.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1998-05
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 947-956
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024363839
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complications of sedation with midazolam in the intensive care unit and a comparison with other sedative regimens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199805000-00034
- The paper
- Shafer, A. (1998). Complications of sedation with midazolam in the intensive care unit and a comparison with other sedative regimens. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199805000-00034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.