Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24558330›Full record

ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2014

Interpatient variability in dexmedetomidine response: a survey of the literature.

Samantha F Holliday, Sandra L Kane-Gill, Philip E Empey, Mitchell S Buckley, Pamela L Smithburger

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.1field-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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha F HollidayUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
Sandra L Kane-GillDepartment of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
Philip E EmpeyDepartment of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
Mitchell S BuckleyBanner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Department of Pharmacy, 1111 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA.
Pamela L SmithburgerDepartment of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USGood Samaritan Medical Center · US

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000005 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$50.8M
University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2TR000146 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$8.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000146NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fifty-five thousand patients are cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) daily with sedation utilized to reduce anxiety and agitation while optimizing comfort. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) released updated guidelines for management of pain, agitation, and delirium in the ICU and recommended nonbenzodiazepines, such as dexmedetomidine and propofol, as first line sedation agents. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, offers many benefits yet its use is mired by the inability to consistently achieve sedation goals. Three hypotheses including patient traits/characteristics, pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients, and clinically relevant genetic polymorphisms that could affect dexmedetomidine response are presented. Studies in patient traits have yielded conflicting results regarding the role of race yet suggest that dexmedetomidine may produce more consistent results in less critically ill patients and with home antidepressant use. Pharmacokinetics of critically ill patients are reported as similar to healthy individuals yet wide, unexplained interpatient variability in dexmedetomidine serum levels exist. Genetic polymorphisms in both metabolism and receptor response have been evaluated in few studies, and the results remain inconclusive. To fully understand the role of dexmedetomidine, it is vital to further evaluate what prompts such marked interpatient variability in critically ill patients.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical IllnessDexmedetomidineHumansHypnotics and SedativesPolymorphism, GeneticPrecision MedicineDexmedetomidineHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID24558330
PMCPMC3914598
OpenAlexW2010143179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.