<title>1. INTRODUCTION</title> <p>The voiding cystourethrogram
(VCUG) is the gold standard for diagnosing vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) and a
number of other bladder conditions [##REF##10103321##1##, ##REF##17272519##2##]. The VCUG is a procedure performed
mainly on infants and young children in the Radiology Department [##REF##1640553##3##]. There is increasing belief that
interventions for VUR are less effective than anticipated, but much debate
remains [##REF##10835063##4##–##REF##17079601##11##]. The child is required to be conscious,
a urinary catheter is inserted, and the bladder is
filled with radio-opaque material, then the child is asked to spontaneously
void [##REF##14564427##12##]. This procedure creates distress in the
child, the parents, and occasionally staff [##REF##8839725##13##–##REF##10196917##15##]. Nonpharmacological methods to reduce
this distress include education prior to the procedure, distraction during, and
rewards after [##REF##9512204##14##, ##UREF##1##16##–##REF##11085757##28##].</p> <p>Pharmacological interventions primarily
focus on sedation but also could include beneficial analgesic, anxiolytic, and
amnesic effects [##REF##1594358##29##, ##REF##8602682##30##]. Sedation brings with it cost, time,
and safety concerns [##REF##10103321##1##, ##REF##1594358##29##–##REF##10742324##33##]. It is unknown whether we can predict
which children will go on to have distress or whether we should sedate
routinely [##REF##11909930##34##]. Which agents should we use, and what
is the best route of administration? The
majority of children having VCUG would not have had one previously. Coping
styles and parent-child interaction are important determinants of distress
during a medical procedure [##REF##11909930##34##]. Safety of sedating agents is excellent
in the context of a sedation service with the necessary staff and equipment to
manage sedation in young children [##REF##16149753##35##–##UREF##5##37##]. Those who sedate children should be
prepared for inadvertent deeper sedation, basic life support, and airway
management [##REF##1594358##29##–##REF##12359805##31##, ##UREF##6##38##–##REF##17142550##40##]. Advanced help should be available.
Time and cost factors limit the introduction of this distress-reducing
intervention. Sedation recovery area and staff time are being the primary cost
factors. The medications themselves are relatively inexpensive. Finally, are we
sure that sedation does not influence the VCUGs ability to diagnose
vesicoureteric reflux?</p>
<title>2. METHODS</title> <p>These methods include a sensitive search of PubMed (1950–2007), EMBASE
(1980–2007), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Randomised Controlled Trials Register. Articles on VCUG were identified through the terms
urography (MESH heading exploded), micturating, or voiding cystourethrogram
using wildcard search for variations of spelling. Acronyms VCUG and MCUG were
also used. To identify sedation articles, the following exploded MESH terms
were used: “hyponotics and sedatives,” conscious sedation, midazolam, propofol,
chloral hydrate, and nitrous oxide. “Sedation” was searched for as a title
word. Results of the VCUG search and sedation search were combined. There were
no limits on language for search, but only English language articles were
reviewed. Further studies were identified from bibliographies. Unpublished
studies were not actively sought.</p>
<title>3. RESULTS</title> <p>Medline search (2008) found 234 papers
of which 17 were considered to be of interest [##REF##17606595##6##, ##REF##17079601##8##, ##REF##8839725##13##, ##REF##9512204##14##, ##UREF##1##16##, ##REF##15891924##41##–##REF##12709753##52##]. EMBASE search found 416 papers of which
additional 8 papers were of interest [##UREF##4##27##, ##REF##16149753##35##, ##REF##15976844##53##–##REF##17564739##59##]. Cochrane Randomised Controlled Trials Register
found no further articles of interest. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
found one review on interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux, but none
on sedation for this procedure [##UREF##0##7##]. A review of the bibliographies 
identified<italic/> further 39 papers of interest [##REF##17272519##2##–##REF##17558268##5##, ##REF##15970603##9##, ##REF##17079601##11##, ##REF##10196917##15##, ##REF##2292629##17##–##REF##2254503##22##, ##REF##10808763##26##, ##REF##11085757##28##, ##REF##11909930##34##, ##UREF##5##37##, ##REF##17142550##40##, ##UREF##10##60##–##REF##15687452##81##]. Four papers on anesthesiology for VCUG were found
and included for discussion [##REF##4673932##82##–##REF##1053344##85##].</p> <p>Any study comparing a
sedative against another sedative, placebo, or standard treatment for VCUG
was reviewed. One French language article [##UREF##14##77##] and one Polish language article [##UREF##8##56##] were not included. Study designs are summarised in
##TAB##0##Table 1##. Outcome measures and results are in ##TAB##1##Table 2## [##REF##15891924##41##, ##REF##7717236##43##, ##REF##17114560##45##, ##REF##16148661##47##, ##REF##12709753##52##, ##REF##17564739##59##]. Quality assessment is shown in ##TAB##2##Table 3##. Only two
of the studies [##REF##17114560##45##, ##REF##12709753##52##] were of high quality with Jadad scores [##REF##8721797##86##] of 4 or more. One unpublished comparative study
was found, but not included [##UREF##12##68##].</p>
<title>4. DISCUSSION</title> <p>The best way to avoid the distress of
the VCUG is not to do the procedure. A better way to image vesicoureteric
reflux has recently been discussed in an editorial by Elder [##REF##15947564##55##]. As much evidence becomes available to show that we
are not influencing the outcome of VUR, less VCUGs may be ordered [##UREF##0##7##, ##REF##12876164##93##]. Possible alternatives include Doppler ultrasound [##REF##10367854##94##] or ultrasound with contrast [##REF##9545481##61##]. A suprapubic approach to avoid catheterisation
seems promising but still requires filling and voiding [##REF##12441990##49##]. Methods to detect reflux without voiding are
impaired as some reflux may be present only on voiding [##REF##4857472##95##], although the fact that whether this is important
or not is debated [##REF##17826505##96##]. Nuclear medicine scanning may be an alternative
or may be able to select those who are more likely to benefit from VCUG [##REF##15311040##67##]. Nuclear medicine cystoscopy replaces radio-opaque
contrast with pharmacolabelled material with lower radiation, but otherwise it is
very similar to the VCUG. Currently, VCUG remains the gold standard until less
invasive tests are developed [##REF##10103321##1##]. At the very least, we should be perfecting our
current technique [##REF##14564427##12##].</p>
<title>10. CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>Sedation reduces distress of the micturating cystourethrogram in children previously
distressed or likely to be distressed. Midazolam is the agent most studied, and
has an excellent safety profile. An oral dose of 0.5-0.6 mg/kg or
intranasal dose of 0.2 mg/kg seems effective. Most children have not had a VCUG
previously, and it may be difficult to predict which of them will go on to have
distress. When giving oral midazolam of 0.5 mg/kg to children routinely, the
number needed to treat them is 2.9
(95%CI 1.9–5.5) to eliminate serious or severe distress.
Continuous flow nitrous oxide appears promising, particularly with a fast onset
and recovery time, but it has greater potential for deeper sedation. This may
interfere with voiding, and further studies are required. Midazolam appears not
to interfere with the VCUG's ability to diagnose vesicoureteric reflux using
indirect (residual volume) and direct (VUR grading) measures. There are many
children who would avoid distress if they were given sedation. Local sedation
services should be engaged, and safety guidelines should be followed to ensure
that this effective treatment might be implemented safely.</p>
<p>Recommended by Walid A. Farhat</p> <p>
<italic>Background</italic>. Voiding cystourethrograms are distressing for children and parents. Nonpharmacological methods reduce distress. Pharmacological interventions for VCUG focus on sedation as well as analgesia, anxiolysis, and amnesia. Sedation has cost, time, and safety issues. Which agents and route should we use? Are we sure that sedation does not influence the ability to diagnose vesicoureteric reflux? <italic>Methods</italic>. Literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Review of
comparative studies found. <italic>Results</italic>. Seven comparative studies including two randomised controlled trials were reviewed. Midazolam given orally (0.5-0.6 mg/kg) or intranasally (0.2 mg/kg) is effective with no apparent effect on voiding dynamics. Insufficient evidence to recommend other sedating agents was found. Deeper sedating agents may interfere with voiding dynamics. <italic>Conclusion</italic>. Midazolam reduces the VCUG distress, causes amnesia, and does not appear to interfere with voiding dynamics. Midazolam combined with simple analgesia is an effective method to reduce distress to children undergoing VCUG.</p>
<title>5. DISTRESS, PAIN, AND ANTICIPATORY ANXIETY</title> <p>Distress is an all encompassing term
that may or may not include a painful stimulus. This can be evidenced by fear
of a procedure, pain responses prior to nociceptive stimuli, or anxiety
behaviours before a planned event. Distress during the voiding cystourethrogram
has been reported in observational and controlled studies. Phillips et al. [##REF##8839725##13##] showed that 52 out of 73 children (71%)
experienced serious distress, severe distress, or panic on the Groningen distress
rating scale [##REF##1614786##90##]. Herd et al. found that serious or severe distress
was detected in 61% of all unsedated children at some stages during the VCUG.
This level of distress may have been brief but is generally considered
unacceptable. This distress is caused not only by urethral catheterisation, but
also by the distension of the bladder and the subsequent voiding of urine in a
socially abnormal situation (##FIG##0##Figure 1##). Nociceptors related to urethral mucosa
and stretch receptors in the bladder provide the peripheral pain signals, but
the majority of the distress is cortical.</p> <p>Distress can also be manifest in the
parent. Parents' perceptions of fear, distress, and pain in their children are
anticipated to be greater than the reality [##REF##11468043##51##].</p> <title>6. PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPY (NONPHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS)</title> <p>Psychological treatments should be
considered first as they often have little or no risk. There are many ways to
reduce the distress of procedures in children [##REF##2657691##19##] and even more challenges researching and
implementing psychological interventions for controlling children's pain [##REF##10361399##97##]. Interventions may range between
simple educational [##REF##11085757##28##] and more
structured play therapy sessions<italic/>[##REF##9512204##14##, ##REF##12394523##76##] 
and hypnoses [##REF##15629969##42##]. Preparation, distraction, and reassurance before,
during, and after the procedure are likely to reduce the distress of the
procedure [##REF##2254503##22##, ##REF##10472541##69##, ##REF##16177227##75##]. Parental presence is comforting for children
during painful procedure and should be encouraged despite the lack of specific
VCUG evidence [##UREF##3##23##].</p> <p>Those who have been previously
distressed by VCUG would seem to be ideal candidates for sedation, but the
majority of children would not have had a previous VCUG. Factors which may
reduce distress in children during VCUG include “effortful control” by the
child and coping and distress-promoting behaviours by the parent [##REF##11909930##34##]. No validated prediction tool exists for VCUG
distress.</p> <title>7. PHARMACOTHERAPY</title> <p>Pharmacotherapy includes sedation, anxiolysis, analgesia, amnesia, and anesthesia.</p> <title>7.1. Sedating agents</title> <p>Sedation continues to be difficult to
define[##REF##18095957##63##]. In the case of the VCUG, a degree of
consciousness is required. This may be defined as light sedation, and the use
of oxymoron “conscious sedation” is being discouraged [##REF##11445787##98##].</p> <p>
<statement id="head1"><title>Midazolam</title><p>Of the selected studies, 5 had midazolam
as a treatment arm and 4 of which were oral and one intranasal. Oral midazolam
dose was 0.5 mg/kg in two studies [##REF##17114560##45##, ##REF##16148661##47##] and 0.6 mg/kg in two other studies [##REF##15891924##41##, ##REF##7717236##43##]. Maximum dose was 15 mg in all. Time
between ingestion and procedure ranged from 15 to 30 minutes. Intranasal dose
in one study was 0.2 mg/kg with a maximum of 5 mg, and it was administered 5
minutes before the procedure [##REF##12709753##52##]. A number of behavioural measures were
employed (##TAB##0##Table 1##). All the studies demonstrate significantly less distress
with midazolam in a variety of measurement tools. Few adverse effects were
encountered. Midazolam may cause adverse paradoxical agitated reactions in less
than 5% of children [##REF##15500492##99##]. These reactions have been shown in
case reports to be ameliorated using the antidote for midazolam (flumazenil)
both in adults [##REF##8659737##100##] and children [##REF##12753459##101##]. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic,
has been shown to be more effective than increased doses of midazolam or
placebo in a randomised controlled trial [##REF##15500492##99##].</p><p>The study by Stockland et al. [##REF##12709753##52##] on 95 children compared intranasal
midazolam (0.2 mg/kg with a
maximum of 5 mg) to placebo. Nurses reported a trend to easier procedure in the
midazolam group (<italic>P</italic> = .07), with girls reported easier than boys (<italic>P</italic> = .06). No serious adverse events were reported. Parents felt that the
administration of midazolam was more uncomfortable than that of placebo (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001).
Parents felt that midazolam made catheterisation, voiding, and the overall
procedure more comfortable (<italic>P</italic> = .015, <italic>P</italic> = .08, and <italic>P</italic> = .047,
resp.). The authors report <italic>P</italic>-values and no absolute scores, which
makes it impossible to estimate treatment effect size or clinical relevance.</p><p>A study by the current author and
colleagues [##REF##17114560##45##] compared oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg with a maximum of 15 mg)
to placebo in 125 children who had VCUG. Behavioural observations were
completed in 117. This was the only study that calculated a priori power requirement or attempted
to quantify the treatment effect. We rated our paper highly using the Jadad
score [##REF##8721797##86##]. We found no serious adverse events.
The number of children experiencing serious or severe distress (Groningen
distress rating scale
(GRDS) &gt;2) at any stage of the procedure was 34 (61%) in the placebo group
and 16 (26%) in the midazolam group. Number needed to treat to reduce serious or severe distress in one child was 
2.9 (95%CI 1.9–5.5).
VUR was identified in 16% of all children. This study was limited to children
above the age of one year.</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head2"><title>Nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O)</title><p>Two studies evaluated nitrous oxide
given with continuous flow devices at 50% and 70%. Keidan et al. compared 50%
nitrous oxide in 23 children to 0.5 mg/kg oral midazolam in 24 children without
a placebo group [##REF##16148661##47##]. They found no difference between
midazolam and 50% nitrous oxide although they did not design this as an
equivalence study, and no power calculation was done. There was a trend for the
time to micturition to be longer in the nitrous group (15.3 minutes versus 7.2
minutes), but it did not reach statistical significance (<italic>P</italic> = .08). Nitrous
oxide was significantly faster with regard to recovery time, with recovery in 29 minutes
versus 63 minutes (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001). Zier et al. used 70% continuous nitrous oxide only for urethral
catheterisation phase of VCUG in an older group of 107 children, and compared
this to standard treatment in other 107 children [##REF##17564739##59##]. The authors chose not to randomise the
study based on difficulties with recruitment and parental expectations. Brief
behavioural distress scores (BBDSs) were demonstrated by the observational tool
selected [##REF##11700336##102##]. Wong-Baker FACES scale was the self-report tool used [##REF##3344163##103##]. For the VCUG group (<italic>n</italic> = 101), BBDS was
44 (range of 11–100) in the
nonsedated group versus 11 (range of 0–67) for the
sedated group (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001). Immediately after catheterisation, the Wong-Baker
FACES scale median was 6 for the nonsedated group and 0 for the sedated group (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001).
Both studies reported time of
completion, but neither study reported VUR grading or residual volume.</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head3"><title>Other agents</title><p>Choral hydrate was compared to oral
midazolam and placebo in one study [##REF##15891924##41##]. A dose of 25 mg/kg was not found to be
statistically different from placebo in reducing distress. This may have been
due to inadequate dose or lack of power in the study. The sedation scale was
also not significant for chloral versus placebo and, therefore, it suggests too low a dose was selected. There is no enough data to
make any assessment of effect on voiding dynamics.</p><p>One retrospective study of propofol
using historical controls was selected for review [##REF##16753428##48##]. While this was an attempt to create a
sedative state using low-dose propofol, the study required the presence of an
anesthetist. During this study, low-dose propofol infusion followed sevoflurane
gas induction and intravenous cannula insertion. This study found that propofol
reduced the ability of children to completely void, which may interfere with
the diagnosis of VUR.</p></statement>
</p> <title>7.2. Anxiolysis</title> <p>Midazolam in the doses used in the
reviewed studies is anxiolytic. Many children may appear fully conscious yet
more cooperative, while another child given the same dose may appear sleepy.
Where anxiolysis ends and sedation begins is unclear, but there would be a
large overlap.</p> <title>7.3. Analgesia</title> <p>There is a wide range of analgesics
available for children [##REF##16854558##104##]. Midazolam does not provide any
analgesia and, therefore, should be supplemented with a simple analgesic.</p> <p>
<statement id="head4"><title>Acetaminophen</title><p>Acetaminophen is the most commonly
provided childhood analgesic with low side effects and cost. It is routinely
offered prior to other potentially painful procedures in children such as
vaccination. Acetaminophen is usually provided in a sweet syrup base, and could
be used to disguise the bitter taste of midazolam. There are many formulations
of acetaminophen syrup, and palatability may vary [##UREF##18##105##].</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head5"><title>Oral sucrose</title><p>Oral sucrose is an effective analgesic
in new-born babies, and has been subject to several controlled trials and a
Cochrane review [##UREF##19##106##]. While no studies have examined its
effect for VCUG distress, it seems a simple likely effective intervention with
low risk for children under 3 months of age.</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head6"><title>Nitrous oxide</title><p>Nitrous oxide is a strong analgesic
antagonising central NMDA receptors, and this is a potential advantage over
midazolam.<italic/> 
Study of Keidan et al. comparing
midazolam to continuous flow nitrous oxide found no difference in FLACC scores [##REF##9220806##91##], a measure of pain used more recently
for procedural distress [##REF##17596217##107##]. Study of Keidan et al. was not
designed as an equivalence study, and no power calculations were done; so a
true difference may not have been detected by the study.</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head7"><title>Opiates</title><p>No studies have looked at opiate use for
VCUG distress. Intranasal midazolam has proven effective, and opiates may also
be administered by this route. Intranasal fentanyl shows promise as a rapid,
easy-to-administer analgesic for severe pain in the children's Emergency Department [##REF##17067720##108##]. Opiates may interfere with bladder
function [##REF##9706950##109##].</p></statement>
</p> <p>
<statement id="head8"><title>Local anesthetics</title><p>Lignocaine gel has been shown to reduce
the pain of catheterisation for VCUG, but a 10-minute process of repeated
application of lignocaine gel to the urethral meatus is required. The authors
did not measure the effect of this procedure but only the reduced pain of
catheterisation that followed. It would seem reasonable to use it with low risk
of harm but at added cost [##REF##12853831##66##]. Further study on children is required.</p></statement>
</p> <title>7.4. Anesthesia</title> <p>There is increasing use of deeper
sedation outside the operating room by nonanesthesiologists [##REF##9390581##110##]. There is debate about which agents
should be used outside the operating room and who should provide this service [##REF##18095957##63##]. For VCUG, anesthetics have been given
to avoid the trauma associated with urethral catheterisation, and then the
child is allowed to wake and complete the VCUG. This does not avoid the
distress caused by bladder distension or micturition. It also requires an
anesthetist and the full costs associated with anesthesia and recovery.</p> <title>8. WHO SHOULD RECEIVE SEDATION?</title> <p>Many children do not experience distress
during the VCUG. This may be related to previous experience, coping style,
parental influence, staff skill, and empathy. Developmental considerations and
education level of the child and parent are important. Nevertheless, many
children, who would not have been predicted, may go on to experience distress.
Parental perceptions of the procedure are such that most parents would request
some medication if it were effective, safe, and available [##REF##7717236##43##, ##REF##16148661##47##].</p> <title>9. DOES SEDATION AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE VCU TO DIAGNOSE REFLUX?</title> <p>Effect of sedation on ability to void can be measured with
indirect or direct measures. Indirect measures include filling volume, residual
volume, and time of
micturition. Bozkurt et al. carefully examined urodynamic variables under the
influence of midazolam [##REF##8813929##62##]. They used a high-intranasal dose of
0.5 mg/kg. Stockland et al. used intranasal midazolam at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg, and
found no difference in reflux grading between the groups [##REF##12709753##52##]. They did not perform a power
calculation, so there is still the possibility of missing a true effect. Herd
et al. considered a clinically important difference in VUR to be a true shift
of one grade down by half of the subjects with the use of midazolam [##REF##17114560##45##]. It was important to detect a
difference, so a 90% power was used. There was no difference in VUR grading
between the groups (nonlinear mixed model analysis, <italic>P</italic> = .31). There was no
evidence of a difference in volume infused between the two groups (<italic>P</italic> = .08).</p>
<title>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</title> <p>A grant from the Waikato Medical
Research Foundation for the original VCU sedation study made this review
possible.</p>
<fig id="fig1" position="float"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p>Bar graph shows the number of children (<italic>n</italic> = 117) who experienced serious or severe distress 
(Groningen distress rating scale (GDRS) score &gt;2 [##REF##1614786##90##]) at each phase of voiding cystourethrography. 56 received placebo (black bars) and 61
received midazolam (white bars), from [##REF##17114560##45##].</p></caption></fig>
<table-wrap id="tab1" position="float"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Studies comparing a sedative against another sedative, placebo, or standard treatment 
for VCUG. Design and interventions. (NSD: no significant difference; VCUG: voiding cystourethrogram; RNC: radionuclide cystography; VUR: vesicoureteric reflux; SD: standard deviation).</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Authors; year; country</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Title</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Patients</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intervention and comparison</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Nonpharmacological cointervention</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Time of follow-up and differences (if any)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Akil, M. Ozkol,O. Y. Ikizoglu, M. Polat, O. Y. Tuncyurek, O. Taskin, H. Yuksel; 2005; Turkey [##REF##15891924##41##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Premedication during micturating cystourethrogram to achieve sedation and anxiolysis”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">53 (39F;14M), &gt;6 m, median age of 6 y (range from 7 m to 11.1 y); first VCUG 98%</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oral <italic>midazolam</italic> of 0.6 mg/kg (max. of 15 mg) versus <italic>chloral hydrate</italic> 
of 25 mg/kg (max. of 500 mg) versus <italic>Placebo</italic>; 15–30 min prior to VCUG</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Parents informed about MCUG and permission granted for sedative drug and making child nil 
by mouth for 3 h, parental presence not stated</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Until they were allowed to drink clear liquids, usually 1 h after completion of the procedure</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. S. Elder, R. Longenecker; 1995; USA [##REF##7717236##43##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Premedication with oral midazolam for voiding cystourethrography in children: safety and efficacy”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">98 children previously distressed by VCUG (38) or appeared shy (79F;19M), mean age of 4.4 (range from 23 m to 9 y); 25 controls (21F : 4M), 
mean age of 4.6 (range not stated); first VCUG 61%</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oral <italic>midazolam</italic> of 0.6 mg/kg (max. of 15 mg), 20–30 min prior to VCUG or NUC 
versus <italic>standard care</italic>
</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Parents of intervention group-contacted prior with purpose of midazolam and expected effects, parents 
are allowed to be present</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Phone call at 48 h</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">D. W. Herd, K. A. McAnulty, N. A. Keene, D. E. Sommerville; 2006; New Zealand [##REF##17114560##45##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Conscious sedation reduces distress in children undergoing voiding cystourethrography and 
does not interfere with the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux: a randomized controlled study”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Children of 1–14 y (eligible); 139 randomised, 117 completed VCUG on the day (84F : 33M), 8 had VCUG 
completed later, age &gt;1 y, mean ages of 3.6 y (SD1.8) and 3.4 y (SD2.1), ASAI-II</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oral <italic>midazolam</italic> of 0.5 mg/kg (max. of 15 mg), 30 min prior to catheter insertion 
versus <italic>placebo</italic>
</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">All offered play therapy (visit to department, doll catheterised), four-page pamphlet, 
only the treatment group fasted for 6 h with solids and 4 h with liquid (i.e., control group was allowed to eat), 
parent/caregiver present, skilled nurse did all catheters</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60–90 min after medication</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Keidan, R. Zaslansky, M. Weinberg, A. Ben-Shlush, J. M. Jacobson, A. Augarten, Y. Mor; 2005; 
Israel [##REF##16148661##47##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Sedation during voiding cystourethrography: comparison of the efficacy and safety of using oral 
midazolam and continuous flow nitrous oxide”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">47 (42F : 5M), age of 3–16 y, ASAI and II, mean age of 6 (range 
from 3 to 15)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oral <italic>midazolam</italic> of 0.5 mg/kg (max. of 15 mg), 20 min 
prior to procedure versus<italic/> continuous flow <italic>50</italic>% <italic>nitrous oxide</italic>
</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Both groups fasted with solids for 6 h, and liquids for 2 h, parents were encouraged 
to accompany the children throughout the procedure, flavoured nasal mask was used for nitrous oxide</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">24 h follow-up by telephone, recovery time of 63 min (SD 25) in midazolam group, 
29 min (SD 10) in the N2O group (<italic>p</italic> &lt; .001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">P. A. Merguerian, S. T. Corbett, J. Cravero; 2006; USA [##REF##16753428##48##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Voiding ability using propofol sedation in children undergoing voiding cystourethrograms: 
a retrospective analysis”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">544 charts, 287 selected ages from 2 to 8 (preselected), mean age of 51 m (244F : 43M), 
first VCUG 75%</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sevoflurane induction followed by <italic>propofol</italic> infusion on its own (<italic>historical controls</italic>)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not reported</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"/></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E. Stokland, S. Andréasson, B. Jacobsson, U. Jodal, B. Ljung; 2003; Sweden [##REF##12709753##52##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Sedation with midazolam for voiding cystourethrography in children: a randomised double-blind study”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Children of 0.5 to 9 y (eligible), 95 enrolled (70F : 20M), gender stratified, 
median age of 2.2 y, midazolam, 3.2 placebo</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Intranasal <italic>midazolam</italic> of 0.2 mg/kg (max. of 5 mg), 3–5 min 
prior to bladder catheter versus <italic>placebo</italic>
</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oral and written information</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Follow-up questionnaire and phone call at 48 h</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="6" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. L. Zier, K. A. Kvam, S. C. Kurachek, M. Finkelstein; 2007; USA [##REF##17564739##59##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">“Sedation with nitrous oxide compared with no sedation during catheterization for urologic imaging 
in children”</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Children of 4–18 y selected by investigator undergoing VCUG or RNC, enrolled 
204 (165F : 39M) out of 389, mean age nonsedated: 6.4 (range of 4–15.2), 
sedated: 6.3 (range of 4–14.9)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Continuous flow <italic>70</italic>% <italic>nitrous oxide</italic> until catheterisation is complete versus <italic>standard care</italic>
</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">All patients fasted for 4 h</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">To time of discharge, longer in sedated group, 85 min versus 33 min (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <table-wrap id="tab2" position="float"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Studies comparing a sedative against another sedative, placebo, or standard treatment for VCUG. Outcomes,
results, and follow-up. (NSD: no significant difference; VCUG: voiding cystourethrogram; RNC: radionuclide cystography; VUR: vesicoureteric reflux; SD: standard deviation).</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Authors; year; country</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Sedation score outcome and results</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Distress outcome(s) and results</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Urological outcome(s) and results</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Safety outcome(s) and adverse events</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Akil, M. Ozkol, O. Y. Ikizoglu, M. Polat, O. Y. Tuncyurek, O. Taskin, H. Yuksel; 2005; Turkey [##REF##15891924##41##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Breitkopf and Buttner classification of emotional status [##REF##279580##87##], 1.87 
(SD0.72) in midazolam versus 1.35 (SD0.49) in control (<italic>P</italic> = .01), duration 
of sedation is 68 min (midazolam), 28 min (chloral), <italic>P</italic> &lt; .001</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Frankl behaviour rating score [##REF##7547819##88##] NSD; Spielberger's state 
anxiety inventory [##REF##15891924##41##] NSD; Houpt behaviour scale [##REF##7547819##88##] 
of 4.93 (SD1.12) in midazolam group versus control of 4.12 (SD 1.05) in chloral group, all NSD</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Postvoid residual volume, VCUG grading, no difference found</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None found, defined as drop in PaO2/Sats by 5%, systolic blood pressure drop of 15 mm Hg, 
drop in pulse to 60 bpm</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. S. Elder, R. Longenecker; 1995; USA [##REF##7717236##43##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Phone call at 48 h, recall, behavioural side effects; parental wishes, 97 out of 98 
contacted, 56 children (60%), no recall of VCUG, 19 (21%) recalled parts, 10 remembered the procedure 
without negative experience, 9 recalled a negative experience, 12 out of 97 children had 
behavioural side effects reported after the study, 92 out of 97 (95%) parents of sedated children 
would request the use of midazolam again</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Postvoid residual volume (Bis and Slovis method [##REF##2202973##89##]), no residual 
volume in 74% of midazolam group and 72% of control group; NSD</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Saturation decrease by 10%, systolic BP drop by 15 mm Hg, respective rate down to 
8/min, HR down to 60/min, one child had a transient decrease in saturation requiring no intervention</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">D. W. Herd, K. A. McAnulty, N. A. Keene, D. E. Sommerville; 2006; New Zealand [##REF##17114560##45##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Independent observer Groningen distress rating scale [##REF##1614786##90##]; nursing 
GDRS; heart rate; parent-child interaction, 61% of placebo group experienced serious or severe distress 
(GDRS of 3 or 4); 26% of midazolam group had the same distress; number needed for treatment was 
2.9 (95%CI 1.9–5.5)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">VUR grade; volume infused, no difference in volume infused (<italic>P</italic> = .8), no difference in 
VUR grading (<italic>P</italic> = .31), a priori power of 90%</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oxygen requirement (Sats &lt;94%), two children in midazolam group had transient desaturations 
to less than 94% and were given oxygen</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Keidan, R. Zaslansky, M. Weinberg, A. Ben-Shlush, J. M. Jacobson, A. Augarten, Y. Mor; 2005; 
Israel [##REF##16148661##47##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">AVPU (alert, responds to voice, responds to pain, unresponsive)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">FLACC (face, legs, activity, crying, consolability) score for pain [##REF##9220806##91##]; 
anxiety score (observer scale of behavioural distress) [##REF##6520283##92##]; no 
difference between midazolam and nitrous oxide, number of children requiring physical restraint is 10/24 in 
midazolam and 2/23 for N2O (<italic>P</italic> = .01)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Time to micturition 7.2 (SD2.5) min for midazolam and 15.3 (SD 17.3), <italic>P</italic> = .8</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oxygen saturation &lt;93%, alteration in heart rate or BP by 15% from baseline, oversedation 
defined as “U” on the AVPU scale</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">P. A. Merguerian, S. T. Corbett, J. Cravero; 2006; USA [##REF##16753428##48##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not reported</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Void to completion; sedated children (55%) could void to completion compared to 89% 
nonsedated (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not reported</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E. Stokland, S. Andréasson, B. Jacobsson, U. Jodal, B. Ljung; 2003; Sweden [##REF##12709753##52##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">VAS from 0 mm to 100 mm (severe problems); nurse observation VAS NSD, parent VAS, 
administration of midazolam more uncomfortable (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001), catheter, 
and overall procedure more uncomfortable with placebo (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001); 
parent follow-up questionnaire at 12, 24, and 48 h of “reactions,” NSD</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">VUR grade; volume infused; ability to void; NSD</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not defined, none reported</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="5" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. L. Zier, K. A. Kvam, S. C. Kurachek, M. Finkelstein; 2007; USA [##REF##17564739##59##]</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Brief behavioural distress score (BBDS) for VCUG, median age of 44 (range of 11–100) 
nonsedated, 11 (range of 0–67) sedated (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001), 
patient self-reported Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale, 6 after catheter in 
nonsedated, 0 in sedated (<italic>P</italic> &lt; .001)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Time to bladder emptying; NSD</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">One patient in sedated group experienced nausea, no desaturations</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <table-wrap id="tab3" position="float"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Quality assessment of studies of sedation for VCUG, including Jadad score [##REF##8721797##86##].</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Authors; year; country; reference</th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Randomised</th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Randomisation described</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Blinded</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Allocation concealment </th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Withdrawals and dropouts?</th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Control</th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Placebo group</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">A priori power</th><th align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Jadad score [##REF##8721797##86##]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Akil, M. Ozkol, O. Y. Ikizoglu, M. Polat, O. Y. Tuncyurek, O. Taskin, H. Yuksel; 2005; Turkey [##REF##15891924##41##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Quasi</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y (not described as double blind)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Cherry-flavoured liquid</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1 (poor)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. S. Elder, R. Longenecker; 1995; USA [##REF##7717236##43##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Kool-aid (artificial sweetner)</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0 (poor)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">D. W. Herd, K. A. McAnulty, N. A. Keene, D. E. Sommerville; 2006; New Zealand [##REF##17114560##45##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y (blinding analysis done)</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mango and orange juices</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y; 80% for GDRS; 90% for VUR grade</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5 (excellent)*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">I. Keidan, R. Zaslansky, M. Weinberg, A. Ben-Shlush, J. M. Jacobson, A. Augarten, Y. Mor; 2005; Israel [##REF##16148661##47##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1 (poor)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">P. A. Merguerian, S. T. Corbett, J. Cravero; 2006; USA [##REF##16753428##48##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y (historical)</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0 (poor)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">E. Stokland, S. Andréasson, B. Jacobsson, U. Jodal, B. Ljung; 2003; Sweden [##REF##12709753##52##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Described</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4 (good)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" colspan="10" rowspan="1">
<hr/>
</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">J. L. Zier, K. A. Kvam, S. C. Kurachek, M. Finkelstein; 2007; USA [##REF##17564739##59##]</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Y</td><td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">N</td><td align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1 (poor)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
<table-wrap-foot><fn><p>*Authors' self-score.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot>
<graphic xlink:href="AU2008-498614.001"/>
[{"label": ["7"], "surname": ["Hodson", "Wheeler", "Vimalchandra", "Smith", "Craig"], "given-names": ["EM", "DM", "D", "GH", "JC"], "article-title": ["Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux"], "italic": ["Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews"], "year": ["2007"], "issue": ["3, article CD001532"]}, {"label": ["16"], "surname": ["Hjelm-Karlsson"], "given-names": ["K"], "article-title": ["Dispelling the fear of the unknown. Effects of information to patients undergoing urography"], "italic": ["Acta Radiologica, Supplement"], "year": ["1991"], "volume": ["375, part 2"], "fpage": ["7"], "lpage": ["29"]}, {"label": ["20"], "surname": ["Lang", "Benotsch", "Fick"], "given-names": ["EV", "EG", "LJ"], "article-title": ["Adjunctive non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: a randomised trial"], "italic": ["The Lancet"], "year": ["2000"], "volume": ["355"], "issue": ["9214"], "fpage": ["1486"], "lpage": ["1490"]}, {"label": ["23"], "surname": ["Piira", "Sugiura", "Champion", "Donnelly", "Cole"], "given-names": ["T", "T", "GD", "N", "ASJ"], "article-title": ["The role of parental presence in the context of children's medical procedures: a systematic review"], "italic": ["Child: Care, Health and Development"], "year": ["2005"], "volume": ["31"], "issue": ["2"], "fpage": ["233"], "lpage": ["243"]}, {"label": ["27"], "surname": ["Zelikovsky", "Rodrigue", "Gidycz"], "given-names": ["N", "JR", "CA"], "article-title": ["Reducing parent distress and increasing parent coping-promoting behavior during children's medical procedure"], "italic": ["Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings"], "year": ["2001"], "volume": ["8"], "issue": ["4"], "fpage": ["273"], "lpage": ["281"]}, {"label": ["37"], "surname": ["Krauss", "Green"], "given-names": ["B", "SM"], "article-title": ["Procedural sedation and analgesia in children"], "italic": ["The Lancet"], "year": ["2006"], "volume": ["367"], "issue": ["9512"], "fpage": ["766"], "lpage": ["780"]}, {"label": ["38"], "article-title": ["Safe Sedation of Children Undergoing Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: A national clinical guideline (SIGN 58)"], "ext-link": ["http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/58/index.html"]}, {"label": ["39"], "article-title": ["Guidelines on Sedation and/or Analgesia for Diagnostic and Interventional Medical or Surgical Procedures. Australia and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. \nAvailable at"], "ext-link": ["http://www.anzca.edu.au/resources/professional-documents/professional-standards/ps9.html"]}, {"label": ["56"], "surname": ["Madzik", "Marci\u0144ski", "Brzewski"], "given-names": ["J", "A", "M"], "article-title": ["Midazolam administration at a department of pediatric radiology: conscious sedation for diagnostic imaging studies"], "italic": ["Polish Journal of Radiology"], "year": ["2006"], "volume": ["71"], "issue": ["2"], "fpage": ["93"], "lpage": ["96"], "comment": ["(Polish)."]}, {"label": ["57"], "surname": ["Radmayr"], "given-names": ["C"], "article-title": ["Can hypnosis reduce distress and improve compliance with voiding cystourethrogram in children?"], "italic": ["Nature Clinical Practice Urology"], "year": ["2005"], "volume": ["2"], "issue": ["4"], "fpage": ["162"], "lpage": ["163"]}, {"label": ["60"], "article-title": ["Guideline statement: management of procedure-related pain in children and adolescents"], "italic": ["Journal of the Paediatrics and Child Health"], "year": ["2006"], "volume": ["42"], "issue": ["supplement 1"], "fpage": ["S1"], "lpage": ["S29"]}, {"label": ["64"], "surname": ["Diament", "Stanley"], "given-names": ["MJ", "P"], "article-title": ["The use of midazolam for sedation of infants and children"], "italic": ["American Journal of Roentgenology"], "year": ["1987"], "volume": ["150"], "issue": ["2"], "fpage": ["377"], "lpage": ["378"]}, {"label": ["68"], "surname": ["Ilan", "Zaslansky", "Weinberg"], "given-names": ["K", "R", "M"], "article-title": ["Sedation during voiding cystourethrography: comparison of the efficacy and safety of using oral midazolam and continuous-flow nitrous oxide"], "italic": ["Section on Urology"], "year": ["October 2004"], "publisher-loc": ["San Francisco, Calif, USA"], "publisher-name": ["American Academy of Pediatrics"]}, {"label": ["70"], "surname": ["Ljung", "Andr\u00e9asson"], "given-names": ["B", "S"], "article-title": ["Comparison of midazolam nasal spray to nasal drops for the sedation of children"], "italic": ["Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology"], "year": ["1996"], "volume": ["24"], "issue": ["1"], "fpage": ["32"], "lpage": ["34"]}, {"label": ["77"], "surname": ["Schmit", "Sfez"], "given-names": ["P", "M"], "article-title": ["Management of anxious and painful manifestations in pediatric uroradiology"], "italic": ["Journal of Radiology"], "year": ["1997"], "volume": ["78"], "issue": ["5"], "fpage": ["367"], "lpage": ["372"]}, {"label": ["78"], "surname": ["Smellie", "Edwards", "Hunter", "Normand", "Prescod"], "given-names": ["J", "D", "N", "ICS", "N"], "article-title": ["Vesico ureteric reflux and renal scarring"], "italic": ["Kidney International"], "year": ["1975"], "volume": ["8"], "fpage": ["S65"], "lpage": ["S72"]}, {"label": ["80"], "surname": ["Stokland", "Andr\u00e9asson", "Jacobsson", "Jodal", "Ljung"], "given-names": ["E", "S", "B", "U", "B"], "article-title": ["Voiding cystourethrography: sedation or no sedation?: in reply"], "italic": ["Pediatric Radiology"], "year": ["2004"], "volume": ["34"], "issue": ["1"], "fpage": ["91 pages"]}, {"label": ["84"], "surname": ["Weiss", "Badlani"], "given-names": ["H", "G"], "article-title": ["Effects of anesthesia on micturition and urodynamics"], "italic": ["International Anesthesiology Clinics"], "year": ["1993"], "volume": ["31"], "issue": ["1"], "fpage": ["1"], "lpage": ["24"]}, {"label": ["105"], "surname": ["Herd", "Salehi"], "given-names": ["DW", "B"], "article-title": ["Palatability of two forms of paracetamol (acetaminophen) suspension: a randomised trial"], "italic": ["Paediatric and Perinatal Drug Therapy"], "year": ["2006"], "volume": ["7"], "issue": ["4"], "fpage": ["189"], "lpage": ["193"]}, {"label": ["106"], "surname": ["Stevens", "Yamada", "Ohlsson"], "given-names": ["B", "J", "A"], "article-title": ["Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures"], "italic": ["Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews"], "year": ["2004"], "issue": ["3, article CD001069"]}]
Adv Urol. 2008 Jul 3; 2008:498614