Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42841340›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2026

Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adults and children requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

Louise Rose, David R Williamson, Iain J McCullagh, Becky Skidmore, Dean A Fergusson, Marc M Perreault, Lisa D Burry

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Louise RoseFaculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1700-3972
David R WilliamsonFaculty of Pharmacy / Department of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal / Höpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Iain J McCullaghDepartment of Perioperative and Critical Care Medicine, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Becky SkidmoreIndependent Information Specialist, Ottawa, Canada.
Dean A FergussonMethodological and Implementation Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Marc M PerreaultFaculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Lisa D BurryNiagara Health Knowledge Institute, Niagara Health, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleDaily sedation interruption (DSI) aims to limit drug accumulation and promote a more awake state, thereby reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and its associated complications. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.

objectivesTo assess the effects of DSI versus sedation management without DSI on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, adverse events related to under- or oversedation (including accidental removal of endotracheal tube and tracheostomy), total doses of sedative and analgesic drug administered, and health-related quality of life, for critically ill people requiring intravenous sedation. SEARCH

methodsWe used CENTRAL, MEDLINE All, Embase Classic+Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Core Collection, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 8 October 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DSI with sedation strategies that did not include DSI (protocolised sedation, non-protocolised usual care (clinician discretion), or analgesia first/no sedation) in mechanically ventilated, critically ill people (adults and infants or children under 18 years of age). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation (from randomisation to successful extubation or death), mortality, and ICU length of stay (LOS). Our important outcomes included hospital LOS, adverse events related to under- or oversedation (e.g. accidental removal of endotracheal tube or other lines or catheters, tracheostomy, new onset of delirium occurrence, use of physical restraint, and cardiac events), total drug doses, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RISK OF BIAS: We used the original Cochrane tool, RoB 1, to assess bias in the RCTs. SYNTHESIS

methodsWe synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis (random-effects modelling). We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses according to pre-defined criteria. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: This update included 23 trials (one cluster-randomised trial; 18 RCTs in adults, five in children) with 5987 (4910 adjusted) participants (3238 adults, 2750 (1673 adjusted) children). Nine trials used a sedation protocol comparator, nine used 'usual sedation practices' with sedative and analgesic drugs at the clinical team's discretion, and five used analgesia-first or no-sedation comparators. SYNTHESIS OF

resultsDaily sedation interruption may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation compared with sedation strategies that do not include DSI (mean difference (MD) -0.15 log days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.01; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on low- and moderate-certainty evidence from 23 trials including nearly 6000 critically ill people, we found that DSI may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and probably reduces mortality, intensive care LOS, and hospital LOS compared with other sedation methods. Daily sedation interruption may have little to no effect on the adverse outcomes of accidental removal of the endotracheal tube or other lines or catheters, but probably reduces the need for tracheostomy. The evidence on sedation dosing is very uncertain; however, DSI probably increases opioid dosing. Given the evidence on the effect on sedation dosing is very uncertain, future trials should include data on total sedative and analgesic doses as well as delirium and health-related quality of life, as these remain under-evaluated.

fundingThis review received no funding. REGISTRATION: Registration (CD009176) and previous version of the review: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009176.pub2. Protocol available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009176.pub1.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessHypnotics and SedativesRespiration, ArtificialAdultChildHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment InterruptionHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID42841340
PMCPMC13643891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.