↓ Skip to main content

Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Mistraletti, Elena S Mantovani, Paolo Cadringher, Barbara Cerri, Davide Corbella, Michele Umbrello, Stefania Anania, Elisa Andrighi, Serena Barello, Alessandra Di Carlo, Federica Martinetti, Paolo Formenti, Paolo Spanu, Gaetano Iapichino, for the SedaEN investigators

Abstract

A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the 'conscious target': patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 197 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 11 5%
Other 45 22%
Unknown 51 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Unspecified 6 3%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 60 30%