↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of sedation strategies for 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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 sedation strategies for critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0338-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Hutton, Lisa D. Burry, Salmaan Kanji, Sangeeta Mehta, Melanie Guenette, Claudio M. Martin, Dean A. Fergusson, Neill K. Adhikari, Ingrid Egerod, David Williamson, Sharon Straus, David Moher, E. Wesley Ely, Louise Rose

Abstract

Sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide sedation and manage agitation and pain in most critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Various sedation administration strategies including protocolized sedation and daily sedation interruption are used to mitigate drug pharmacokinetic limitations and minimize oversedation, thereby shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation. At present, it is unclear which strategy is most effective, as few have been directly compared. Our review will use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank sedation strategies to determine their efficacy and safety for mechanically ventilated patients. We will search the following from 1980 to March 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will also search the Cochrane Library, gray literature, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will use a validated randomized control trial search filter to identify studies evaluating any strategy to optimize sedation in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Authors will independently extract data from eligible studies in duplicate and complete the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our outcomes of interest include duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first extubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, re-intubation, tracheostomy, mortality, total sedative and opioid exposure, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. To inform our NMA, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses using random-effects models. Where appropriate, we will perform Bayesian NMA using WinBUGS software. There are multiple strategies to optimize sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. Current ICU guidelines recommend protocolized sedation or daily sedation interruption. Our systematic review incorporating NMA will provide a unified analysis of all sedation strategies to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions that may not have been compared directly. We will provide knowledge users, decision makers, and professional societies with ranking of multiple sedation strategies to inform future sedation guidelines. PROSPERO CRD42016037480.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 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 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 28 28%