Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16741692›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2006

Sedation and analgesia in German intensive care units: how is it done in reality? Results of a patient-based survey of analgesia and sedation.

Jörg Martin, Martin Franck, Matthias Fischer, Claudia Spies

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jörg MartinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Hospital am Eichert, Eichertstrasse 3, 73035 Göppingen, Germany. Joerg.Martin@email.de
Martin Franck
Matthias Fischer
Claudia Spies

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study carried out the first patient-oriented survey on the practice of analgesia and sedation in German intensive care units, examining whether the goals of early spontaneous breathing and awake, cooperative patients are achieved.

designA postal survey was sent to 261 hospitals in Germany. Each hospital received three patient-oriented forms with questions regarding current agents and techniques for analgesia and sedation of a specific patient. Responses were obtained from 220 (84%) hospitals which returned 305 questionnaires.

resultsPatients' Ramsay sedation scale was significantly higher in all phases of analgesia and sedation, indicating that the patients were more deeply sedated than currently intended by the therapist. Propofol was used for most of the patients during short-term sedation (57%) and during weaning (48%). The preferred agent for sedation longer than 72[Symbol: see text]h was midazolam (66%).

conclusionThe choice of agents and techniques for analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit thus follows the German guidelines. The fact that the patients were more deeply sedated than intended by the therapist in all phases of sedation may be due to the low use of sedation scales and clinical practice guidelines or to the lack of training in using these techniques.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalgesiaChildCritical CareFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProcedural SedationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID16741692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.