MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551610514 · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0378-2

Melatonin and melatonin agonists to prevent and treat delirium in critical illness: a systematic review protocol

2016· review· en· W2551610514 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Foster, Lisa Burry, Lehana Thabane, Karen Choong, Kusum Menon, Mark Duffett, Alexandra Cheung, Melanie Guenette, Timothy Chimunda, Louise Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of OttawaMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioPopulation Health Research InstituteHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie UniversityToronto East General HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoChildren’s Health Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumCochrane LibraryIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialCINAHLMEDLINEMechanical ventilationEmergency medicinePsychiatryInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a syndrome characterized by acute fluctuations and alterations in attention and arousal. Critically ill patients are at particularly high risk, and those that develop delirium are more likely to experience poor clinical outcomes such as prolonged duration of ICU and hospital length of stay, and increased mortality. Melatonin and melatonin agonists (MMA) have the potential to decrease the incidence and severity of delirium through their hypnotic and sedative-sparing effects, thus improving health-related outcomes. The objective of this review is to synthesize the available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and safety of MMA for the prevention and treatment of ICU delirium. METHODS: We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL to identify studies evaluating MMA in critically ill populations. We will also search http://apps.who.int/trialsearch for ongoing and unpublished studies and PROSPERO for registered reviews. We will not impose restrictions on language, date, or journal of publication. Authors will independently screen for eligible studies using pre-defined criteria; data extraction from eligible studies will be performed in duplicate. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the risk of bias and quality of randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. Our primary outcome of interest is delirium incidence, and secondary outcomes include duration of delirium, number of delirium- and coma-free days, use of physical and chemical (e.g., antipsychotics or benzodiazepines) restraints, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality, long-term neurocognitive outcomes, hospital discharge disposition, and adverse events. We will use Review Manager (RevMan) to pool effect estimates from included studies. We will present results as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences, or standardized mean differences, for continuous outcomes. DISCUSSION: Current guidelines make no pharmacological recommendations for either the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium. This systematic review will synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of MMA for this purpose, thus potentially informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015024713.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.373 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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