Scholarlink

<p>This comment critiques a trial comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX) and esketamine (sKET) for pediatric procedural sedation. Despite a large effect size, the small sample (<i>n</i> = 29) likely caused false-negative results (<i>p</i> = 0.09), necessitating larger trials. Safety concerns (e.g., aspiration risk), unaddressed long-term psychological outcomes, and limited pharmacokinetic data (delayed DEX onset, prolonged duration) challenge clinical applicability. Future studies should integrate objective measures and long-term follow-up.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comment on “A randomized double-blind trial of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal esketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in young children”

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月13日

查看全文
  • Jiajing Wang

摘要

This comment critiques a trial comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine (DEX) and esketamine (sKET) for pediatric procedural sedation. Despite a large effect size, the small sample (n = 29) likely caused false-negative results (p = 0.09), necessitating larger trials. Safety concerns (e.g., aspiration risk), unaddressed long-term psychological outcomes, and limited pharmacokinetic data (delayed DEX onset, prolonged duration) challenge clinical applicability. Future studies should integrate objective measures and long-term follow-up.