ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care2026
Comparison of NeuroSENSE
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2026. 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.
- Effect of the orexin receptor antagonist, suvorexant, on sleep architecture in the early postoperative period following cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Research progress in agitation early warning monitoring and new technologies for critically ill patients: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) can lead to adverse outcomes such as agitation, awareness, or prolonged ventilation. While clinical sedation scales are commonly used and scientifically validated, they are prone to inter-observer variability. Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based depth of sedation (DoS) monitors offer continuous, objective assessment.
objectiveThis study compares NeuroSENSE
designSingle-centre, prospective, comparative, observational study.
settingMixed medical and surgical ICU of a tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty critically ill adult patients, sedated with propofol with or without remifentanil or morphine.
methodsThis observational, prospective and single-centre study was performed in 30 critically ill adult patients in the ICU, sedated with propofol with or without remifentanil or morphine. The patients underwent two monitoring sessions, each starting with a 30-min "no touch" period to ensure stable sedation. DoS indices (PSI for the Sedline
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was agreement between DoS and RASS, evaluated using prediction probability (P
resultsThirty sedated ICU patients were included in this study. The P
conclusionsThere is no difference in performance in predicting the DoS in critically ill patients sedated with propofol and remifentanil or morphine in a mixed ICU population between the SedLine
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.