Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25823444›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia management of critically ill children: a pilot study evaluating guideline impact and feasibility in the PICU.

Samantha J Keogh, Debbie A Long, Desley V Horn

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha J KeoghNursing Research Services, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN)-Centre for Health Practice Innovation-Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia.
Debbie A LongPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing (NCREN)-Centre for Health Practice Innovation-Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia.
Desley V HornPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
National Health and Medical Research Council · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this study was to develop and implement guidelines for sedation and analgesia management in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and evaluate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of these as part of a programme of research in this area and as a prelude to future trial work.

methodThis pilot study used a pre-post design using a historical control.

settingTwo PICUs at different hospitals in an Australian metropolitan city.

participantsPatients admitted to the PICU and ventilated for ≥24 h, aged more than 1 month and not admitted for seizure management or terminal care.

interventionGuidelines for sedation and analgesia management for critically ill children including algorithm and assessment tools. OUTCOME VARIABLES: In addition to key outcome variables (ventilation time, medication dose and duration, length of stay), feasibility outcomes data (recruitment, data collection, safety) were evaluated. Guideline adherence was assessed through chart audit and staff were surveyed about merit and the use of guidelines.

resultsThe guidelines were trialled for a total of 12 months on 63 patients and variables compared with the historical control group (n=75). Analysis revealed differences in median Morphine infusion duration between groups (pretest 3.63 days (87 h) vs post-test 2.83 days (68 h), p=0.05) and maximum doses (pretest 120 μg/kg/h vs post-test 97.5 μg/kg/h) with no apparent change to ventilation duration. Chart audit revealed varied use of tools, but staff were positive about the guidelines and their use in practice.

conclusionsThe sedation guidelines impacted on the duration and dosage of agents without any apparent impact on ventilation duration or length of stay. Furthermore, the guidelines appeared to be feasible and acceptable in clinical practice. The results of the study have laid the foundation for follow-up studies in withdrawal from sedation, point prevalence and longitudinal studies of sedation practices as well as drug trial work.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceIntensive Care Units, PediatricAnalgesiaAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolCritical IllnessHumansHypnotics and SedativesPilot ProjectsPractice Guidelines as TopicProcedural SedationHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID25823444
PMCPMC4386214
OpenAlexW2153529939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.