Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22166673›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2011

Long-term psychological effects of a no-sedation protocol in critically ill patients.

Thomas Strøm, Mette Stylsvig, Palle Toft

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02040649 (Substudy of the NONSEDA-trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT02040649 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Substudy of the NONSEDA-trial (NCT01967680): Non-sedation Versus Sedation With a Daily Wake-up Trial in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Me-chanical Ventilation - Effects on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

TypeinterventionalSponsorPalle ToftRan2014 to 2019Enrolled205ConditionsStress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Depression, AnxietyArmsNon-sedation, Control, sedation (propofol, midazolam)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evolving targets for sedation during mechanical ventilation.Current opinion in critical care · 2020
    Review
  15. "Sedation is tricky": A qualitative content analysis of nurses' perceptions of sedation administration in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses · 2018
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. The Benefit of Benzodiazepine Reduction: Improving Sedation in Surgical Intensive Care.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas StrømDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr Boulevard 29, 5000 Odense C, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. t.s@dadlnet.dk
Mette Stylsvig
Palle Toft
Odense University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA protocol of no sedation has been shown to reduce the time patients receive mechanical ventilation and to reduce intensive care and total hospital length of stay. The long-term psychological effects of this strategy have not yet been described. The purpose of the study was to test whether a strategy of no sedation alters long-term psychological outcome compared with a standard strategy with sedation.

methodsDuring intensive care stay, 140 patients requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized to either no sedation or sedation with daily interruption of sedation. This study was done as a single-blinded cohort study. After discharge, patients were interviewed by a neuropsychologist assessing quality of life, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

resultsTwo years after randomization, 38 patients were eligible for interview, and 26 patients were interviewed (13 from each group). No difference was found with respect to quality of life (Medical Outcome Study, 36-item short-form health survey). Both mental and physical components were nonsignificant. The Beck depression index was low in both groups (one patient in intervention group versus three patients in the control group were depressed, p = 0.32). Evaluated with the Impact of Events Scale, both groups had low stress scores (one in the intervention group versus two in the control group had scores greater than 32; p = 0.50). State anxiety scores were also low (28 in the control group versus 30 in the intervention group, p = 0.58).

conclusionsOur data suggest that a protocol of no sedation applied to critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation does not increase the risk of long-term psychological sequelae after intensive care compared with standard treatment with sedation.

Indexed as

AgedClinical ProtocolsCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedProcedural SedationQuality of LifeRespiration, ArtificialSingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22166673
PMCPMC3388632
OpenAlexW2163725283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.