SynthesisBMJ open2021
Risk prediction models for emergence delirium in paediatric general anaesthesia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for pediatric emergence delirium: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Ultrasound-Guided Rectus Abdominis Sheath Block on Analgesia and Agitation During the Awakening Period in Children Undergoing Single-Incision Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Trial
- An interpretable machine learning model for predicting emergence agitation in children: a multicenter development and validation study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- A nomogram for predicting emergence agitation after laparoscopic high ligation of the hernia sac in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- How to mitigate confounding factors in observational studies.Journal of anesthesia · 2023Article
- The Topics and Publication Trends in Emergence Deliri-Um: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2002 to 2022.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Association of volatile anesthesia exposure and depth with emergence agitation and delirium in children: Prospective observational cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Incidence of Emergence Delirium in the Pediatric PACU: Prospective Observational Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Peri-Operative Nurses' Experiences of Recognizing and Responding to Post-Anesthetic Pediatric Emergence Delirium: A Narrative Review.SAGE open nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergence delirium (ED) occurs in approximately 25% of paediatric general anaesthetics and has significant adverse effects. The goal of the current systematic review was to identify the existing literature investigating performance of predictive models for the development of paediatric ED following general anaesthesia and to determine their usability.
designSystematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework. DATA SOURCES: Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses International through 17 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All randomised controlled trials and cohort studies investigating predictive models for the development of ED in children undergoing general anaesthesia. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Following title, abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters, details of anaesthetics and performance characteristics of the predictive scores for ED. Evidence quality and predictive score usability were assessed according to the PROBAST framework.
resultsThe current systematic review yielded 9242 abstracts, of which only one study detailing the development and validation of the Emergence Agitation Risk Scale (EARS) met the inclusion criteria. EARS had good discrimination with c-index of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.89). Calibration showed a non-significant Homer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p=0.97). Although the EARS demonstrated low concern of applicability, the high risk of bias compromised the overall usability of this model.
conclusionsThe current systematic review concluded that EARS has good discrimination performance but low usability to predict ED in a paediatric population. Further research is warranted to develop novel models for the prediction of ED in paediatric anaesthesia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141950.
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.