ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Impact of sedation levels on outcomes in neurocritical care patients with intracranial hemorrhage: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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.
- Nurses' Pain Assessment and Attitudes: A Qualitative Study in a Neurointensive Care Unit.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sedation in neurointensive care is essential for managing patients with acute brain injuries. While sedation is commonly employed to alleviate stress responses and enhance patient comfort, the relationship between sedation practices and clinical outcomes remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of patients with intracranial hemorrhage admitted to a tertiary care neurosurgical center from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≥ 13, early mortality, or prior treatment elsewhere were excluded. Sedation depth was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, Glasgow coma scale at discharge, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, and infection rates. Among 562 patients screened, 138 met inclusion criteria, with 73 (52.9%) receiving sedation. No significant differences were observed in ICU stay, discharge GCS, or mRS between sedation and non-sedation groups, nor between light and deep sedation. The sedation group had longer mechanical ventilation (15 ± 12 days vs. 7.03 ± 12.83 days; p < 0.05) but similar rates of hospital acquired pneumonia (68.49% vs. 50.77%; p = 0.44). Sedation depth and the decision to sedate did not significantly impact key clinical outcomes. Individualized sedation strategies should prioritize patient comfort and clinical needs without assuming deeper sedation adversely affects recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40175838What 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.