Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23778830›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2013

Optimal sedation in pediatric intensive care patients: a systematic review.

Nienke J Vet, Erwin Ista, Saskia N de Wildt, Monique van Dijk, Dick Tibboel, Matthijs de Hoog

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04684238 (A Randomised Active-controlled Study to Compare Efficacy & Safety of Inhaled Isoflurane Delivered by the AnaConDa-S), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-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.

NCT04684238 phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Randomised Active-controlled Study to Compare Efficacy & Safety of Inhaled Isoflurane Delivered by the AnaConDa-S (Anaesthetic Conserving Device) vs IV Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Paediatric Patients 3-17 Years Old

TypeinterventionalSponsorSedana MedicalRan2021 to 2023Enrolled94ConditionsSedationArmsMidazolam, Isoflurane
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. ComparativeFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nienke J VetIntensive Care, Erasmus MC, Sophia Children's Hospital, Dr. Molewaterplein 60, 3015 GJ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. n.vet@erasmusmc.nl
Erwin Ista
Saskia N de Wildt
Monique van Dijk
Dick Tibboel
Matthijs de Hoog
Erasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NLBoston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSedatives administered to critically ill children should be titrated to effect, because both under- and oversedation may have negative effects. We conducted a systematic review to examine reported incidences of under-, optimal, and oversedation in critically ill children receiving intensive care.

methodsA systematic literature search using predefined criteria was performed in PubMed and Embase to identify all articles evaluating level of sedation in PICU patients receiving continuous sedation. Two authors independently recorded: study objective, study design, sample size, age range, details of study intervention (if applicable), sedatives used, length of sedation, sedation scale used, and incidences of optimal, under-, and oversedation as defined in the studies.

resultsTwenty-five studies were included. Two studies evaluated sedation level as primary study outcome; the other 23 as secondary outcomes. Together, these studies investigated 1,163 children; age range, 0-18 years. Across studies, children received many different sedative agents and sedation level was assessed with 12 different sedation scales. Optimal sedation was ascertained in 57.6 % of the observations, under sedation in 10.6 %, and oversedation in 31.8 %.

conclusionsThis study suggests that sedation in the PICU is often suboptimal and seldom systematically evaluated. Oversedation is more common than undersedation. As oversedation may lead to longer hospitalization, tolerance, and withdrawal, preventing oversedation in pediatric intensive care deserves greater attention.

Indexed as

ChildCritical CareHumansHypnotics and SedativesProcedural SedationHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID23778830
OpenAlexW1971391425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.