SynthesisCritical care explorations2025
Evaluation of Objective Sedation Monitoring Practices in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if objective sedation monitoring practices reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and other clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes in critically ill adult patients. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO, and the grey literature. STUDY SELECTION: Observational or interventional original research studies, conducted in adult critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation, evaluating any objective sedation monitoring practice (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and reporting on duration of mechanical ventilation or other secondary outcomes (e.g., length of stay) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Meta-analysis was performed for pooled estimates of the primary outcome and each individual secondary outcome using random-effects modeling. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty studies (3410 patients) were included with 15 studies evaluating processed EEG monitoring, 2 evaluating EEG monitoring, and 3 evaluating processed facial electromyography (EMG). Processed EEG was not associated with reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.33; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.25; I2 = 84.4%). Secondary outcomes of processed EEG monitoring showed decreased hospital length of stay (days) (SMD -0.89; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.62; I2 = 13.4%), reduced total sedative dose (reported in propofol equivalents, mg) (SMD -1.29; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.31; I2 = 96.6%), and reduced total opioid dose (reported in morphine equivalents, mg) (SMD -0.40; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.04; I2 = 77.0%). Processed facial EMG was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03-1.90; I2 = 0.00%). Risk of bias was serious for 65% (n = 13/20) of included studies.
conclusionsProcessed EEG monitoring is not associated with reduced duration of mechanical ventilation but may be associated with reduced sedative and opioid exposure and decreased hospital length of stay. Processed facial EMG monitoring may be associated with increased adverse events.
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.