↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0327-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

L.D. Burry, B. Hutton, M. Guenette, D. Williamson, S. Mehta, I. Egerod, S. Kanji, N.K. Adhikari, D. Moher, C.M. Martin, L. Rose

Abstract

Delirium is characterized by acute changes in mental status including inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness, and is highly prevalent in critically ill adults. Delirium has adverse consequences for both patients and the healthcare system; however, at this time, no effective treatment exists. The identification of effective prevention strategies is therefore a clinical and research imperative. An important limitation of previous reviews of delirium prevention is that interventions were considered in isolation and only direct evidence was used. Our systematic review will synthesize all existing data using network meta-analysis, a powerful statistical approach that enables synthesis of both direct and indirect evidence. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from 1980 to March 2016. We will search the PROSPERO registry for protocols and the Cochrane Library for published systematic reviews. We will examine reference lists of pertinent reviews and search grey literature and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We will include randomized and quasi-randomized trials of critically ill adults evaluating any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or multi-component intervention for delirium prevention, administered in or prior to (i.e., peri-operatively) transfer to the ICU. Two authors will independently screen search results and extract data from eligible studies. Risk of bias assessments will be completed on all included studies. To inform our network meta-analysis, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses for primary and secondary outcomes using random-effects models. We will generate our network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework, assuming a common heterogeneity parameter across all comparisons, and accounting for correlations in multi-arm studies. We will perform analyses using WinBUGS software. This systematic review will address the existing knowledge gap regarding best practices for delirium prevention in critically ill adults by synthesizing evidence from trials of pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions administered in or prior to transfer to the ICU. Use of network meta-analysis will clarify which delirium prevention strategies are most effective in improving clinical outcomes while causing least harm. The network meta-analysis is a novel approach and will provide knowledge users and decision makers with comparisons of multiple interventions of delirium prevention strategies. PROSPERO CRD42016036313.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 9 6%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 46 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Chemistry 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 40 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,054,683
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#331
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,259
of 342,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.