Pharmacological interventions for agitation in patients with traumatic brain injury: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a worldwide leading cause of mortality and disability. Among TBI complications, agitation is a frequent behavioural problem. Agitation causes potential harm to patients and caregivers, interferes with treatments, leads to unnecessary chemical and physical restraints, increases hospital length of stay, delays rehabilitation, and impedes functional independence. Pharmacological treatments are often considered for agitation management following TBI. Several types of agents have been proposed for the treatment of agitation. However, the benefit and safety of these agents in TBI patients as well as their differential effects and interactions are uncertain. In addition, animal studies and observational studies have suggested impaired cognitive function with the use of certain antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. Hence, a safe and effective treatment for agitation, which does not interfere with neurological recovery, remains to be identified. METHODS/DESIGN: With the help of Health Sciences librarian, we will design a search strategy in the following databases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE®, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science, and Prospero. A grey literature search will be performed using the resources suggested in CADTH's Grey Matters. We will include all randomized controlled, quasi-experimental, and observational studies with control groups. The population of interest is all patients, including children and adults, who have suffered a TBI. We will include studies in which agitation, not further defined, was the presenting symptom or one of the presenting symptoms. We will also include studies where agitation was not the presenting symptom but was measured as an outcome variable and studies assessing the safety of these pharmacological interventions in TBI patients. We will include studies evaluating all pharmacological interventions including beta-adrenergic blockers, typical and atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, dopamine agonists, psychostimulants, antidepressants, alpha-2-adrenergic agonists, hypnotics, and anxiolytics. DISCUSSION: Although agitation is frequent following TBI and pharmacological agents that are often used, there is no consensus on the most efficacious and safest strategy to treat these complications. There is a need for an updated systematic review to summarize the evidence in order to inform practice and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033140.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".