↓ Skip to main content

Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010698.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian F Wall, Kirk Magee, Samuel G Campbell, Peter J Zed

Abstract

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used frequently in the emergency department (ED) to facilitate painful procedures and interventions. Capnography, a monitoring modality widely used in operating room and endoscopy suite settings, is being used more frequently in the ED setting with the goal of reducing cardiopulmonary adverse events. As opposed to settings outside the ED, there is currently no consensus on whether the addition of capnography to standard monitoring modalities reduces adverse events in the ED setting. To assess whether capnography in addition to standard monitoring (pulse oximetry, blood pressure and cardiac monitoring) is more effective than standard monitoring alone to prevent cardiorespiratory adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation, hypotension, emesis, and pulmonary aspiration) in ED patients undergoing PSA. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to 9 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials of ED patients requiring PSA with no language restrictions. We searched meta-registries (www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicalstudyresults.org, and clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing trials (February 2016). We contacted the primary authors of included studies as well as scientific advisors of capnography device manufacturers to identify unpublished studies (February 2016). We handsearched conference abstracts of four organizations from 2010 to 2015. We included any RCT or quasi-randomized trial comparing capnography and standard monitoring to standard monitoring alone for ED patients requiring PSA. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality for the 'Risk of bias' tables. An independent researcher extracted data for any included studies that our authors were involved in. We contacted authors of included studies for incomplete data when applicable. We used Review Manager 5 to combine data and calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both random-effects and fixed-effect models. We identified three trials (κ = 1.00) involving 1272 participants. Comparing the capnography group to the standard monitoring group, there were no differences in the rates of oxygen desaturation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.63; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.69; n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). There was only one episode of emesis recorded without significant difference between the groups (RR 3.10, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.88, n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate with downgrades primarily due to heterogeneity and reporting bias.There were no differences in the rate of airway interventions performed (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.69; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, we found a higher rate of airway interventions for adults in the capnography group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; n = 1118, 2 trials; moderate quality evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 12. Although statistical heterogeneity was reduced, there was moderate quality of evidence due to outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. None of the studies reported recovery time. There is a lack of convincing evidence that the addition of capnography to standard monitoring in ED PSA reduces the rate of clinically significant adverse events. Evidence was deemed to be of moderate quality due to population and outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. Our review was limited by the small number of clinical trials in this setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 20 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,009,441
of 14,072,119 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,028
of 10,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,995
of 263,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,072,119 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 10,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. 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 263,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.