Cited by 295Epilepsy research and treatmentAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsPharmaceutical studies and practices

Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study

Open access
Lahat, E.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of midazolam given intranasally with diazepam given intravenously in the treatment of children with prolonged febrile seizures. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study. SETTING: Paediatric emergency department in a general hospital. SUBJECTS: 47 children aged six months to five years with prolonged febrile seizure (at least 10 minutes) during a 12 month period. INTERVENTIONS: Intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) and intravenous diazepam (0.3 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from arrival at hospital to starting treatment and cessation of seizures. RESULTS: Intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam were equally effective. Overall, 23 of 26 seizures were controlled with midazolam and 24 out of 26 with diazepam. The mean time from arrival at hospital to starting treatment was significantly shorter in the midazolam group (3.5 (SD 1.8) minutes, 95% confidence interval 3.3 to 3.7) than the diazepam group (5.5 (2.0), 5.3 to 5.7). The mean time to control of seizures was significantly sooner (6.1 (3.6), 6.3 to 6.7) in the midazolam group than the diazepam group (8.0 (0.5), 7. 9 to 8.3). No significant side effects were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Seizures were controlled more quickly with intravenous diazepam than with intranasal midazolam, although midazolam was as safe and effective as diazepam. The overall time to cessation of seizures after arrival at hospital was faster with intranasal midazolam than with intravenous diazepam. The intranasal route can possibly be used not only in medical centres but in general practice and, with appropriate instructions, by families of children with recurrent febrile seizures at home.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.321.7253.83

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For children with acute seizures, intranasal midazolam is both safe and effective.

    “studies have suggested that intranasal midazolam is safe and effective for acute seizure management in children (124, 127, 128, 135, 136).”
  • Open-label studies suggest that intranasal midazolam is safe and effective for acute seizure management in children.

    “Open-label studies have suggested that intranasal midazolam is safe and effective for acute seizure management in children (124, 127, 128, 135, 136).”
  • Initial treatment response occurred in 23 of 26 seizures (88%) with intranasal midazolam and 24 of 26 (92%) with intravenous diazepam.

    “with 88% of seizures (23 of 26) responding to initial treatment with midazolam and 92% (24 of 26) responding to diazepam (124).”
  • In three controlled clinical trials, intranasal midazolam had efficacy similar to or better than intravenous or rectal diazepam.

    “In three controlled clinical trials, the efficacy of intranasal midazolam was similar to or better than that of i.v. or rectal diazepam (124, 127, 128).”
  • A prospective randomized open-label trial found intranasal midazolam comparable to intravenous diazepam in safety and efficacy for febrile seizure management.

    “In a prospective, randomized, open-label study, intranasal midazolam was as safe and effective as i.v.diazepam was for managing febrile seizures”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Conner JT, Katz RL, Pagano RP, Graham CW. PO21-3981 for intravenous surgical pre-medication and induction of anesthesia. Anesthesiol Anal 1978;57:1-5.
  2. Lacon A, Reddy VG. Nasal midazolam and ketamine for pediatric seda- tion during computerized tomography. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 1994;38:259-61.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lahat, E.
Affiliations
Assaf Harofeh Medical Center (IL)
Corresponding author
Lahat, E.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-07-08
Volume
321
Issue
7253
Pages
83-86
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059085344
Cited by
294
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
febrile seizures, prolonged febrile seizures, intranasal midazolam, intravenous diazepam, benzodiazepines, seizure control, pediatric emergency care, time to treatment, children
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Anticonvulsants, Child, Child, Preschool, Seizures, Febrile, Diazepam, Female, Humans, Infant, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Midazolam, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome

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