ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2023
A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the management of pain, sedation, delirium and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in adult intensive care unit: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Delirium and Iatrogenic Withdrawal Profiles in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU): A Latent Profile Analysis of Nurse-Administered Bedside Scales.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Current applications and future perspectives of family-integrated care in the pediatric intensive care unit: a narrative review from concept to practice.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Diagnosis and management of Children with Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Paediatrics: Clinical Practice Guidelines by the French National Authority for Health (HAS).Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Pain, Agitation, Delirium, and Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome Management in Children Who Are Critically Ill: Protocol for a European Clinical Practice Guideline Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Incidence of pediatric delirium and withdrawal outside the PICU: findings from a pediatric cardiology ward.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Barriers and facilitators of pain management in children: a scoping review.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations for managing pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care (PICU). The objectives included evaluating the quality of recommendations, synthesizing recommendations, harmonizing the strength of the recommendation (SoR) and the certainty of evidence (CoE), and assessing the relevance of supporting evidence. Methods: A comprehensive search in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase.com, CINAHL and JBI EBP Database), 9 guideline repositories, and 13 professional societies was conducted to identify CPGs published from January 2010 to the end of May 2023 in any language. The quality of CPGs and recommendations was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize recommendations, and the GRADE SoR and CoE harmonization method was used to interpret the credibility of summary recommendations. Results: A total of 18 CPGs and 170 recommendations were identified. Most CPGs were of medium-quality, and three were classified as high. A total of 30 summary recommendations were synthesized across each condition, focused on common management approaches. There was inconsistency in the SoRs and CoE for summary recommendations, those for assessment showed the highest consistency, the remaining were conditional, inconsistent, inconclusive, and lacked support from evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review provides an overview of the quality of CPGs for these four conditions in the PICU. While three CPGs achieved high-quality ratings, the overall findings reveal gaps in the evidence base of recommendations, patient and family involvement, and resources for implementation. The findings highlight the need for more rigorous and evidence-based approaches in the development and reporting of CPGs to enhance their trustworthiness. Further research is necessary to enhance the quality of recommendations for this setting. The results of this review can provide a valuable foundation for future CPG development. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=274364, PROSPERO (CRD42021274364).
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.