Trial reportPloS one2021
Effect of enterally administered sleep-promoting medication on the intravenous sedative dose and its safety and cost profile in mechanically ventilated patients: A retrospective cohort study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nursing strategies for the mechanically ventilated patient.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical effect of enteral administration of sleep-promoting medication (SPM) in mechanically ventilated patients remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between enteral SPM administration and the intravenous sedative dose and examine the safety and cost of enteral SPM administration.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in a Japanese tertiary hospital intensive care unit (ICU). The exposure was enteral SPM administration during mechanical ventilation. The outcome was the average daily propofol dose per body weight administered as a continuous sedative during mechanical ventilation. Patients were divided into three groups based on the timing of SPM administration at ICU admission: "administration within 48 hours (early administration [EA])," "administration after 48 hours (late administration [LA])," and "no administration (NA)." We used multiple linear regression models.
resultsOf 123 included patients, 37, 50, and 36 patients were assigned to the EA, LA, and NA groups, respectively. The average daily propofol dose per body weight was significantly lower in the EA group than in the LA and NA groups (β -5.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.93 to -1.33] and β -4.51 [95% CI -8.59 to -0.43], respectively). Regarding safety, enteral SPM administration did not increase adverse events, including self-extubation. The total cost of neuroactive drugs tended to be lower in the EA group than in the LA and NA groups.
conclusionsEarly enteral SPM administration reduced the average daily propofol dose per body weight without increasing adverse events.
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.