Current patterns of propofol use in PICU in the United Kingdom and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the current patterns of propofol use in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in the UK and North America. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to all PICUs in the UK and those units offering PICU training fellowships in the USA and Canada. RESULTS: We received responses from 15 UK units (75%) and 33 units in North America (52%). Of units who responded, 47% of UK units used propofol for ongoing sedation, compared with 61% of North American units. Units tended to use propofol in defined clinical circumstances, in limited doses, in older children and for relatively short periods. Propofol was used for sedation during procedures in 100% of units although 35% of UK units said that they would use it less frequently in this setting than in the past. Only 18% of North American Units reported that they would be less likely to use propofol for procedures than in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear guidance from the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines, propofol was still used for ongoing sedation in 47% of UK PICUs responding to our questionnaire. Reasons for this include the utility of the agent and its licensing for use in maintaining anesthesia in children over 3 years, but not for sedation in PICU in similar doses, for similar periods, in the same group of children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".