Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36971791›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2023

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID-ICU trial.

Nina C Andersen-Ranberg, Lone Musaeus Poulsen, Anders Perner, Johanna Hästbacka, Matthew Morgan, Giuseppe Citerio, Marie Oxenbøll Collet, Sven-Olaf Weber, Anne Sofie Andreasen, Morten Bestle and 9 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.

Nina C Andersen-RanbergDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark. ncan@regionsjaelland.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-0804-1064
Lone Musaeus PoulsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark.
Anders PernerCollaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Johanna HästbackaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Matthew MorganDepartment of Intensive Care, Cardiff University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Giuseppe CiterioUniversità Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Marie Oxenbøll ColletCollaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sven-Olaf WeberDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Anne Sofie AndreasenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev, Herlev, Denmark.
Morten BestleCollaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bülent UsluDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Helle Scharling PedersenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Nykøbing Falster Sygehus, Nykøbing Falster, Denmark.
Louise Gramstrup NielsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Kjeld DamgaardDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hjørring Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark.
Troels Bek JensenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
Trine SommerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital Sønderjylland, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Nilanjan DeyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark.
Ole MathiesenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Lykkebækvej 1, 4600, Køge, Denmark.
Anders GranholmCollaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKZealand University Hospital · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKAzienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo · ITCentre for Research in Intensive Care · DKHelsinki University Hospital · FIHerlev Hospital · DKOdense University Hospital · DKSjællands Universitetshospital, Nykøbing F. · DKSygehus Sønderjylland · DKUniversity Hospital of Wales · GB

Funding

Innovationsfonden 4108-00011BRegional Medicines Fund R124-2651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.

methodsWe used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.

resultsThe mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.

conclusionsWe found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsDeliriumAdultBayes TheoremHaloperidolHumansIntensive Care UnitsAntipsychotic AgentsHaloperidolBayesian analysisDeliriumHaloperidol

Identifiers

PMID36971791
OpenAlexW4360985139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.