| Title |
Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0391-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marija Barbateskovic, Laura Krone Larsen, Marie Oxenbøll-Collet, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Anders Perner, Jørn Wetterslev |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is high. Delirium has been associated with morbidity and mortality including more ventilator days, longer ICU stay, increased long-term mortality and cognitive impairment. Thus, the burden of delirium for patients, relatives and societies is considerable. Today, reviews of randomised clinical trials are produced in large scales sometimes making it difficult to get an overview of the available evidence. A preliminary search identified several reviews investigating the effects of pharmacological interventions for the management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. The conclusions of the reviews showed conflicting results. Despite this unclear evidence, antipsychotics, in particular, haloperidol is often the recommended pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. The objective of this overview of reviews is to critically assess the evidence of reviews of randomised clinical trials on the effect of pharmacological management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. We will search for reviews in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Two authors will independently select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will present the data as a narrative synthesis and summarise the main results of the included reviews. In addition, we will present an overview of the bias risk assessment of the systematic reviews. Results of this overview may establish a way forward to find and update or to design a high quality systematic review assessing the effects of the most promising pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. PROSPERO - CRD42016046628 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 147 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 49 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2020.
All research outputs
#15,030,394
of 25,165,468 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,559
of 2,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,070
of 431,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,165,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.