ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Practices related to assessment of sedation, analgesia and delirium among critical care pediatricians in Brazil.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the State Behavioral Scale to Brazilian Portuguese.Critical care science · 2025Article
- Enhancing delirium awareness in South America: current insights and future perspectives for research and practice.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Delirium Assessment Treatment Strategies in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients: A Pediatric Pharmacy Association Practice-Based Research Network Survey Study.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to Brazilian Portuguese for the evaluation of sedation in pediatric intensive care.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the use of tools, protocols and comfort measures related to sedation/analgesia, and to screen the occurrence of delirium in pediatric intensive care units.
methodsA survey with 14 questions was distributed by e-mail to Brazilian critical care pediatricians. Eight questions addressed physician and hospital demographics, and six inquired practices to assess sedation, analgesia, and delirium in pediatric intensive care units.
resultsOf 373 questionnaires sent, 61 were answered (16.3%). The majority of physicians were practicing in the Southeast region (57.2%). Of these, 46.5% worked at public hospitals, 28.6% of which under direct state administration. Of respondents, 57.1% used formal protocols for sedation and analgesia, and the Ramsay scale was the most frequently employed (52.5%). Delirium screening scores were not used by 48.2% of physicians. The Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium was the score most often used (23.2%). The majority (85.7%) of physicians did not practice daily sedation interruption, and only 23.2% used non-pharmacological measures for patient comfort frequently, with varied participation of parents in the process.
conclusionThis study highlights the heterogeneity of practices for assessment of sedation/analgesia and lack of detection of delirium among critical care pediatricians in Brazil.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.