↓ Skip to main content

Melatonin and melatonin agonists to prevent and treat delirium in critical illness: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Melatonin and melatonin agonists to prevent and treat delirium in critical illness: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0378-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Foster, Lisa D. Burry, Lehana Thabane, Karen Choong, Kusum Menon, Mark Duffett, Alexandra Cheung, Melanie Guenette, Timothy Chimunda, Louise Rose

Abstract

Delirium is a syndrome characterized by acute fluctuations and alterations in attention and arousal. Critically ill patients are at particularly high risk, and those that develop delirium are more likely to experience poor clinical outcomes such as prolonged duration of ICU and hospital length of stay, and increased mortality. Melatonin and melatonin agonists (MMA) have the potential to decrease the incidence and severity of delirium through their hypnotic and sedative-sparing effects, thus improving health-related outcomes. The objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and safety of MMA for the prevention and treatment of ICU delirium. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL to identify studies evaluating MMA in critically ill populations. We will also search http://apps.who.int/trialsearch for ongoing and unpublished studies and PROSPERO for registered reviews. We will not impose restrictions on language, date, or journal of publication. Authors will independently screen for eligible studies using pre-defined criteria; data extraction from eligible studies will be performed in duplicate. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the risk of bias and quality of randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. Our primary outcome of interest is delirium incidence, and secondary outcomes include duration of delirium, number of delirium- and coma-free days, use of physical and chemical (e.g., antipsychotics or benzodiazepines) restraints, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality, long-term neurocognitive outcomes, hospital discharge disposition, and adverse events. We will use Review Manager (RevMan) to pool effect estimates from included studies. We will present results as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences, or standardized mean differences, for continuous outcomes. Current guidelines make no pharmacological recommendations for either the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium. This systematic review will synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of MMA for this purpose, thus potentially informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes. PROSPERO CRD42015024713.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 11 7%
Other 44 28%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 43 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,787
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,716
of 415,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#40
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 415,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.