ArticleBMC anesthesiology2021
A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03975751 (A Survey on the Practice of Sedation and Analgesia Among Patients With Severe Brain Injury in China), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
A Survey on the Practice of Sedation and Analgesia Among Patients With Severe Brain Injury in China: a Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Cognitive Phenotypes of Implementation Barriers to Analgesia and Sedation Management Among ICU Nurses: A Q Methodology Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Blended teaching mode based on small private online course and case-based learning in analgesia and sedation education in China: a comparison with an offline mode.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Sedation, sleep-promotion, and non-verbal and verbal communication techniques in critically ill intubated or tracheostomized patients: results of a survey.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts postoperative delirium in elderly patients after surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Clinical Management of Emergence Delirium in Adults: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice in Mainland China.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid metabolic profiling reveals divergent modulation of pentose phosphate pathway by midazolam, propofol and dexmedetomidine in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.
methodsWe sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.
resultsWe enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.
conclusionsThe actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.
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.