↓ Skip to main content

Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0061-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Conway, Joanna Sutherland

Abstract

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used to attenuate the pain and distress that may otherwise be experienced during diagnostic and interventional medical or dental procedures. As the risk of adverse events increases with the depth of sedation induced, frequent monitoring of level of consciousness is recommended. Level of consciousness is usually monitored during PSA with clinical observation. Processed electroencephalogram-based depth of anaesthesia (DoA) monitoring devices provide an alternative method to monitor level of consciousness that can be used in addition to clinical observation. However, there is uncertainty as to whether their routine use in PSA would be justified. Rigorous evaluation of the clinical benefits of DoA monitors during PSA, including comprehensive syntheses of the available evidence, is therefore required. One potential clinical benefit of using DoA monitoring during PSA is that the technology could improve patient safety by reducing sedation-related adverse events, such as death or permanent neurological disability. We hypothesise that earlier identification of lapses into deeper than intended levels of sedation using DoA monitoring leads to more effective titration of sedative and analgesic medications, and results in a reduction in the risk of adverse events caused by the consequences of over-sedation, such as hypoxaemia. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether using DoA monitoring during PSA in the hospital setting improves patient safety by reducing the risk of hypoxaemia (defined as an arterial partial pressure of oxygen below 60 mmHg or percentage of haemoglobin that is saturated with oxygen [SpO(2)] less than 90 %). Other potential clinical benefits of using DoA monitoring devices during sedation will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Electronic databases will be systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of depth of anaesthesia monitoring devices with clinical observation of level of consciousness during PSA. Language restrictions will not be imposed. Screening, study selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Meta-analyses will be performed if suitable. This review will synthesise the evidence on an important potential clinical benefit of DoA monitoring during PSA within hospital settings. PROSPERO CRD42015017251.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 40%
Computer Science 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%

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 17 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,542,095
of 8,609,067 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#598
of 709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,393
of 219,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,609,067 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 219,226 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.