ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2024
Nociception level index variations in ICU: curarized vs non-curarized patients - a pilot study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early inhaled isoflurane sedation in neurocritical patients with invasive intracranial pressure monitoring: the NEURO-CONDA randomized pilot trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Nociception and pain assessment during suctioning procedures in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: A validation study of the Nociception Level index (NOL™).Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026Article
- Objective monitoring of acute pain and nociception in anaesthesia and intensive care: evidence and applications.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePain is a major physiological stressor that can worsen critical medical conditions in many ways. Currently, there is no reliable monitoring tool which is available for pain monitoring in the deeply sedated ± curarized critically ill patients. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the multiparameter nociception index (NOL®) in the critical care setting. We compared NOL with traditionally used neurovegetative signs and examined its correlation with sedation depth measured by bispectral index (BIS®) electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring.
methodsThis retrospective monocentric cohort study was conducted in a general intensive care unit, including patients who required moderate-to-deep levels of sedation with or without continuous neuromuscular blockade. The performance of NOL was evaluated both in the entire studied population, as well as in two subgroups: curarized and non-curarized patients.
resultsNOL demonstrated greater accuracy than all other indicators in pain detection in the overall population. In the non-curare subgroup, all indices correctly recognized painful stimulation, while in the patients subjected to neuromuscular blocking agent's infusion, only NOL properly identified nociception. In the former group, EEG's relation to nociception was on the border of statistical significance, whereas in the latter BIS showed no correlation with NOL.
conclusionNOL emerges as a promising device for pain assessment in the critical care setting and exhibits its best performance precisely in the clinical context where reliable pain assessment methods are most lacking. Furthermore, our research confirms the distinction between sedation and analgesia, highlighting the necessity for distinct monitoring instruments to accurately assess them.
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.