ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2018
Management of pain, anxiety, agitation and delirium in burn patients: a survey of clinical practice and a review of the current literature.
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Delirium and Its Related Factors in Burn Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Medical and Surgical Care of Critical Burn Patients: A Comprehensive Review of Current Evidence and Practice.Cureus · 2022Review
- Research progress on risk factors of delirium in burn patients: A narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- Prevalence and Risk Factors for Delirium in Elderly Patients With Severe Burns: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of pain, agitation and anxiety is crucial in critically ill patients, and has a significant impact on clinical and functional outcome. This study aims to assess current management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in adult burn ICUs, and determine if discrepancies exist between current guidelines and actual practices.An online survey was created and sent to burn specialists worldwide.A total of 40 respondents submitted valuable data. Of all respondents, 20 (50%) were from Europe, 7 (17.5%) from North America, 6 (15%) from Africa and 12 (30%) from other regions. The majority of respondents were from burn centres with more than 60 admissions per year (32 centres, 80%); 36 respondents (90%) were affiliated with a University Hospital. 92.5% reported that they routinely screen severe burn patients for pain, while 27.5% declared that no particular pain assessment tool is used. The most common analgesics were opioids, mainly administered intravenously (90%). 70% affirmed they routinely screen burn ICU patients for sedation, but 30% declared that they do not use a specific sedation scoring scale. The most commonly used sedatives were midazolam (72.5%) and propofol (55%). 70% claimed to assess burn ICU patients routinely for delirium, but 57.5% reported they did not use a specific scoring system. 62.5% stated that they prevent delirium by combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Our results indicate that awareness regarding the systematic and correct management of pain, sedation and delirium is increasing among burn specialists. However, a substantial gap between guidelines and clinical practices exist. Efforts should be directed at creating specific burn care guidelines and enhancing the implementation of existing recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30374260PMC6199011W2980663858What OpenQuestion holds
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.