↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
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 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Psychology 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 24 24%

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
#9,061,915
of 15,791,593 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,022
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,650
of 410,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#108
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,791,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 410,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.