MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170312557 · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0139-7

Clonidine for sedation in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)

2015· review· en· W2170312557 on OpenAlexaff
Gennie Jing Wang, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Lisa Burry, Mark Duffett, Timothy Karachi, Dan Perri, Waleed Alhazzani, Frédérick D’Aragon, Hannah Wunsch, Bram Rochwerg

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University Medical CentreSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationClonidineDexmedetomidineMechanical ventilationSedativeIntensive care unitPropofolDeliriumIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialIntensive careEmergency medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Management and choice of sedation is important during critical illness in order to reduce patient suffering and to facilitate the delivery of care. Unfortunately, medications traditionally used for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) such as benzodiazepines and propofol are associated with significant unwanted effects. Clonidine is an alpha-2 selective adrenergic agonist that may have a role in optimizing current sedation practices in the pediatric and adult critically ill populations by potentially minimizing exposure to other sedative agents. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ACPJC, the Cochrane trial registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the use of clonidine as an adjunctive or stand-alone sedative agent in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Our primary outcome is the duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes include the following, listed by priority: duration of sedation infusions, dose of sedation used, level of sedation, incidence of withdrawal from other sedatives, delirium incidence, ICU and hospital length of stay, use and duration of non-invasive ventilation, and all-cause ICU and hospital mortality. We will also capture unwanted effects potentially associated with clonidine administration such as clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia, clonidine withdrawal, self-extubation, and the accidental removal of central intravenous lines and arterial lines. We will not apply any publication date, language, or journal restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies using predefined eligibility criteria and then review full reports of all potentially relevant citations. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be achieved. We will use Review Manager (RevMan) to pool effect estimates from included studies across outcomes. We will present the results as relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95 % CI. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of clonidine as a sedative agent in the critically ill population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015019365.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0390.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207