↓ Skip to main content

Propofol for the promotion of sleep in adults in the intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Propofol for the promotion of sleep in adults in the intensive care unit
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012454.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon R Lewis, Oliver J Schofield-Robinson, Phil Alderson, Andrew F Smith

Abstract

People in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience sleep deprivation caused by environmental disruption, such as high noise levels and 24-hour lighting, as well as increased patient care activities and invasive monitoring as part of their care. Sleep deprivation affects physical and psychological health, and people perceive the quality of their sleep to be poor whilst in the ICU. Propofol is an anaesthetic agent which can be used in the ICU to maintain patient sedation and some studies suggest it may be a suitable agent to replicate normal sleep. To assess whether the quantity and quality of sleep may be improved by administration of propofol to adults in the ICU and to assess whether propofol given for sleep promotion improves both physical and psychological patient outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to October 2017), Embase (1974 to October 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to October 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to October 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with adults, over the age of 16 years, admitted to the ICU with any diagnoses, given propofol versus a comparator to promote overnight sleep. We included participants who were and were not mechanically ventilated. We included studies that compared the use of propofol, given at an appropriate clinical dose with the intention of promoting night-time sleep, against: no agent; propofol at a different rate or dose; or another agent, administered specifically to promote sleep. We included only studies in which propofol was given during 'normal' sleeping hours (i.e. between 10 pm and 7 am) to promote a sleep-like state with a diurnal rhythm. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and synthesized findings. We included four studies with 149 randomized participants. We identified two studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility and one ongoing study.Participants differed in severity of illness as assessed by APACHE II scores in three studies and further differences existed between comparisons and methods. One study compared propofol versus no agent, one study compared different doses of propofol and two studies compared propofol versus a benzodiazepine (flunitrazepam, one study; midazolam, one study). All studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. We judged all studies to have high risk of performance bias from personnel who were unblinded. We noted that some study authors had blinded study outcome assessors and participants for relevant outcomes.It was not appropriate to combine data owing to high levels of methodological heterogeneity.One study comparing propofol with no agent (13 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using polysomnography; study authors reported no evidence of a difference in duration of sleep or sleep efficiency, and reported disruption to usual REM (rapid eye movement sleep) with propofol.One study comparing different doses of propofol (30 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep by personnel using the Ramsay Sedation Scale; study authors reported that more participants who were given a higher dose of propofol had a successful diurnal rhythm, and achieved a greater sedation rhythmicity.Two studies comparing propofol with a different agent (106 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; one study reported fewer awakenings of reduced duration with propofol, and similar total sleep time between groups, and one study reported no evidence of a difference in sleep quality. One study comparing propofol with another agent (66 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep with the Bispectral Index and reported longer time in deep sleep, with fewer arousals. One study comparing propofol with another agent (40 participants) reported higher levels of anxiety and depression in both groups, and no evidence of a difference when participants were given propofol.No studies reported adverse events.We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low. We identified sparse data with few participants, and methodological differences in study designs and comparative agents introduced inconsistency, and we noted that measurement tools were imprecise or not valid for purpose. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether administration of propofol would improve the quality and quantity of sleep in adults in the ICU. We noted differences in study designs, methodology, comparative agents and illness severity amongst study participants. We did not pool data and we used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of our evidence to very low.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 34%
Student > Master 9 20%
Unspecified 8 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 48%
Unspecified 9 20%
Psychology 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,397,716
of 13,618,920 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,952
of 10,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,097
of 390,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,618,920 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 390,306 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 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 55% of its contemporaries.