ArticleCritical care research and practice2026
Adapting Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Sedation, Analgesia, Withdrawal, and Delirium Assessment and Management in Critically Ill Children.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 2026. 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.
- Adapting Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Sedation, Analgesia, Withdrawal, and Delirium Assessment and Management in Critically Ill Children.Critical care research and practice · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To adapt evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for sedation, analgesia, withdrawal, and delirium assessment and management with a focus on early mobility in critically ill children admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Design: The panel included two groups: the guideline adaptation group (GAG), which consisted of two consultant pediatric intensivists, a clinical pharmacist, a senior nurse specialist, and a general pediatrician and a CPG methodologist, and an external review and consultation group, which included five consultant pediatric intensivists, a clinical pharmacist, and two CPG expert physicians. A formal methodology for CPG adaptation was followed and included three phases: set-up, adaptation, and finalization. Results: The provided assessment tools and management algorithms focused on adequacy of sedation and analgesia, medication selection, dosing, initiation, and adjustment for both noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation; withdrawal assessment; weaning of sedation and analgesia; withdrawal management; delirium screening; delirium management; as well as early mobility facilitation. Implementation tools included behavioral scoring tool for sedation and pain, Withdrawal Assessment Tool with a management guide, screening score for delirium with a management guide, 3 clinical management algorithms for sedation management, analgesia management, and weaning process. Conclusions: Based on a systematic adaptation framework and the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach, the present study formulated an adapted CPG with practically applicable implementation tools and management algorithms that might help standardize sedation, analgesia, and withdrawal assessment and management in critically ill children at the PICU. We recommend further studies to clarify the generalizability, impact of its implementation, and practices to overcome potential barriers.
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.