ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Inter-rater Agreement of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale Assessments in Adult Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ComparativeFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
importanceAccurate and reliable sedation assessment is crucial to improving patient outcomes in the ICU.
objectiveTo evaluate the inter-rater agreement and reliability of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) assessments between bedside nurses and trained investigators in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsAn assessor triad, comprising an ICU nurse providing direct patient care and two trained investigators, simultaneously performed RASS assessments during 79 encounters with 62 unique patients receiving mechanical ventilation at two ICUs at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado. A total of 58 nurses participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The inter-rater reliability of RASS assessments was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa (κ), and inter-rater agreement was evaluated with percentage agreement and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsAcute respiratory failure (55%) and altered mental status (21%) were the most common reasons for mechanical ventilation. Most patients were receiving one (interquartile range, 0.5-2) continuous sedative during the assessment. The inter-rater reliability of RASS assessments between the nurses and investigators (ICC, 0.728-0.779; weighted κ, 0.62-0.63) was lower than between the two investigators (ICC, 0.891; weighted κ, 0.80). The assessor triad agreed on the same RASS values in only 35% of observations. The average differences in RASS were greater between the investigators and nurses, ranging from -0.658 to -0.544, compared with 0.114 between the two investigators. Compared with the mean of the two investigators, RASS values recorded by nurses were more likely to be higher (52% of observations), indicating a lighter sedation level. In 16% of observations, at least one assessor commented on uncertainty or ambiguity with the RASS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The inter-rater reliability of RASS assessments was high. However, we observed variations in the degree of agreement by assessor category. Further studies are necessary to explore how factors such as assessor characteristics, ICU environment, and patient conditions influence the inter-rater agreement of the RASS in contemporary ICU practices.
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.