↓ Skip to main content

Challenges of pain management in neurologically injured patients: systematic review protocol of analgesia and sedation strategies for early recovery from neurointensive care

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Challenges of pain management in neurologically injured patients: systematic review protocol of analgesia and sedation strategies for early recovery from neurointensive care
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0756-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Wyler, Michael Esterlis, Brittany Burns Dennis, Andrew Ng, Abhijit Lele

Abstract

A recent paradigm shift within the intensive care discipline has led to implementation of protocols to drive early recovery from the intensive care unit (ICU). These protocols belong to a large knowledge, translation and quality improvement initiative lead by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, aiming to "liberate" patients from the ICU. They "bundle" evidence-based elements shown to lower ICU stay and mortality and optimize pain management. The bundled elements focus on Assessing, preventing and managing pain; Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; assessment, prevention, and management of Delirium; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF). It is evident that analgesia and sedation protocols either directly relate to or influence most of the bundle elements. A paucity of literature exists for neurologically injured patients, who create unique challenges to bundle implementation and often have limited external validity in existent studies. We will systematically search the literature, present the unique challenges of neurointensive care patients, conduct a stratified analysis of subgroups of interest, and disseminate the evidence of analgesia and sedation protocols in the neurointensive care unit (NICU). We hope the relevant stakeholders can adapt this information through knowledge translation-to make formal recommendations in clinical practice guidelines or a position statement. The authors will search MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry. The title, abstract, and full-text screening will be completed in duplicate, and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of agreement will be reported. Provided the data retrieved from studies is suitable, results will be combined statistically using meta-analysis. We aim to evaluate the impact of ABCDEF bundle components on multiple endpoints of NICU recovery. Our primary outcomes will be time to successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and time to early mobility. The authors will guide the methodological design of the study using the PRISMA-statement and the checklist compliance will be available. Using the evidence from this systematic review, we anticipate disseminating knowledge of analgesia and sedation protocols in the NICU. The results of this systematic review are imperative to close the knowledge gap in a patient population that is often excluded from studies, and to add to the body of literature aiming to enhance early recovery from the NICU and mitigate iatrogenic harm. PROSPERO CRD42017078909.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 26%
Psychology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 22 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,297,885
of 14,403,834 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#485
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,535
of 274,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,403,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 274,958 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.