Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323592›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2024

Continuous infusion ketamine for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit: A scoping review.

Nicholas David Richards, William Weatherhead, Simon Howell, Mark Bellamy, Ruben Mujica-Mota

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

5 authors.

Nicholas David RichardsAdult Critical Care, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3200-7114
William WeatherheadAdult Critical Care, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Simon HowellDepartment of Anaesthesia, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Mark BellamyAdult Critical Care, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Ruben Mujica-MotaAcademic Unit of Heath Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a common and often live-saving intervention on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The optimisation of sedation to mechanical ventilation is fundamental, and inappropriate sedation has been associated with worse outcomes. This scoping review has been designed to answer the question ' Methods: The protocol was designed using the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Data were extracted and reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. Results: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, OVID, Scopus, Web of Science) produced 726 results; 45 citations were identified for further eligibility assessment, an additional five studies were identified through keyword searches, and 12 through searching reference lists. Of these 62 studies, 27 studies were included in the final review: 6 case reports/case series, 11 retrospective cohort/observational studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 9 prospective randomised studies. Conclusion: We found a lack of high-quality well-designed studies investigating the use of continuous ketamine sedation on ICU. The available data suggests this intervention is safe and well tolerated, however this is of very low certainty given the poor quality of evidence.

Indexed as

critical careIntensive careketaminemechanical ventilationscoping reviewsedation

Identifiers

PMID39323592
PMCPMC11421257

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.