Titles and abstracts were assessed by two review authors [Arathi Papineni (AP) and Paul Ashley (PA)] for inclusion in the review. Data extraction was carried out using a specially designed form independently by two of the review authors (AP and PA). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Review authors were not blinded to the journal of publication or the author’s names on the papers. The descriptive data recorded is shown in Figure 4. These were characterised under the following headings (see tables 13.2a and b in the Cochrane

Handbook for more details[12]): whether there was an intervention; how groups were created; which parts of the study were prospective if any. Risk of bias was assessed by ranking studies according to a hierarchy of evidence. Across studies, a summary assessment was rated as low risk of bias when most information was from studies at low risk of bias, unclear risk of bias when most information this website was from studies at low or unclear risk of bias, and high risk of bias when the proportion of information was from studies at high risk of bias sufficient to affect the Acalabrutinib purchase interpretation of the results. Data from individual studies were presented; where possible, data from studies were to be pooled to allow some estimate of the number of adverse effects overall. Ideally, dichotomous or continuous outcome variables with means and standard deviations were to be recorded where

available. To further evaluate side effects following use of oral midazolam for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry, the following subgroup analyses were also proposed if data were available: age; dose. Randomised controlled clinical trials of effectiveness and randomised controlled clinical trials looking at side effects There were no RCTs found looking

at side effects alone. After combining the results from Medline and Embase searches and removing papers that did not meet the criteria, 16 papers were included[13-28]. Data from these papers are summarised in Table 1. Only the numbers of subjects receiving oral midazolam are described. Summary data are at the bottom of the table; only simple summary measures could be calculated due to the limited data available from some studies. n = 30 4.6 (0.77) Crossover n = 25 5.36 (1.7) Parallel Hypoxaemia, Telomerase or disinhibition (n = 6) Vomiting and nausea (n = 2) Vertigo, vomiting, speaking disability (n = 3) Euphoria, hypoxaemia, disinhibition and headache (n = 1) Vertigo, disinhibition and nausea, salivation, speaking disability (n = 2) Nb – hypoxaemia not defined, assumed to be minor n = 16 (unclear) Age range = 4–10 years Parallel 7.5 mg midazolam vs Placebo n = 23 6.8 Crossover Minor visual disturbances: one diplopia and a mild hallucination (n = 2) Ataxia (n = 1) n = 31 4.7 Crossover Transient desaturation (n = 4) Vomiting (n = 1) Confrontational/defiant behaviour (n = 2) n = 20 Younger than 4 years old Parallel n = 20 No age given Parallel n = 11 3.