MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077181141 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828e96c0

Evaluating Pain, Sedation, and Delirium in the Neurologically Critically Ill—Feasibility and Reliability of Standardized Tools

2013· article· en· W2077181141 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amy Yu, Jeanne Teitelbaum, Jill Scott, Gail Gesin, Brittany Russell, Toan Huynh, Yoanna Skrobik

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumSedationCritically illIntensive care medicineReliability (semiconductor)Emergence deliriumCritical illnessMEDLINEAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and reliability of systematic evaluations of analgesia, sedation level, and delirium features in the neurologically critically ill and to determine whether delirium features are linked to clinical outcomes in this population. DESIGN: Multicentered prospective observational study. SETTING: Neurological, Neurosurgical, Neurosciences or Surgical Trauma ICUs from three hospitals (two in Canada and one in the United States). PATIENTS: A convenience sample of adult NICU or neurologic, neurosurgical, neurosciences, or surgical trauma ICU patients admitted for greater than 12 hours from November 2011 to April 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Systematic assessments were simultaneously and independently performed by a neurologist, intensivists, or trauma surgeon, and a nurse in three multispecialty ICUs. Pain was evaluated with the numeric rating scale or behavioral pain scale. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Patients with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than or equal to -4 were screened for features of delirium with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability between the nurse and the physician for pain and sedation scales, and the kappa coefficient was calculated for concordance of the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 151 patients had 439 assessments. Pain and sedation were always assessable with excellent inter-rater reliability (numeric rating scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; behavior pain scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.83; and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92). Patients were sufficiently alert for delirium screening 3/4 of the time; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items had good concordance (kappa coefficients between 0.58 and 0.91 for the eight Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items). Nonevaluable items were most often orientation, hallucinations, and speech or mood content. Furthermore, each additional Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist item present in proportion to the total evaluable Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score was associated with a 10% increase in ICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and sedation can be systematically assessed in the neurologically critically ill; the majority can also be screened for delirium features with excellent inter-rater reliability. Increased proportion of Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items is associated with worse outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.575
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.575
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207