| Title |
Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-016-4344-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Harris, Anne-Sylvie Ramelet, Monique van Dijk, Pavla Pokorna, Joke Wielenga, Lyvonne Tume, Dick Tibboel, Erwin Ista |
| Abstract |
This position statement provides clinical recommendations for the assessment of pain, level of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in critically ill infants and children. Admission to a neonatal or paediatric intensive care unit (NICU, PICU) exposes a child to a series of painful and stressful events. Accurate assessment of the presence of pain and non-pain-related distress (adequacy of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium) is essential to good clinical management and to monitoring the effectiveness of interventions to relieve or prevent pain and distress in the individual patient. A multidisciplinary group of experts was recruited from the members of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). The group formulated clinical questions regarding assessment of pain and non-pain-related distress in critically ill and nonverbal children, and searched the PubMed/Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases for studies describing the psychometric properties of assessment instruments. Furthermore, level of evidence of selected studies was assigned and recommendations were formulated, and grade or recommendations were added on the basis of the level of evidence. An ESPNIC position statement was drafted which provides clinical recommendations on assessment of pain (n = 5), distress and/or level of sedation (n = 4), iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (n = 3) and delirium (n = 3). These recommendations were based on the available evidence and consensus amongst the experts and other members of ESPNIC. This multidisciplinary ESPNIC position statement guides professionals in the assessment and reassessment of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for pain, distress, inadequate sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 18% |
| Spain | 4 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 52% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 24% |
| Scientists | 6 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 466 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 464 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 60 | 13% |
| Other | 53 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 52 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 8% |
| Researcher | 35 | 8% |
| Other | 113 | 24% |
| Unknown | 117 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 183 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 101 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 24 | 5% |
| Unknown | 128 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,824,847
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,499
of 5,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,475
of 316,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#11
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 316,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.