MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902117384 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2992-x

Rapid agitation control with ketamine in the emergency department (RACKED): a randomized controlled trial protocol

2018· article· en· W2902117384 on OpenAlexafffund
David Barbic, Gary Andolfatto, Brian Grunau, Frank Scheuermeyer, William MacEwan, William G. Honer, Hubert Wong, Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesLions Gate HospitalSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsKetamineMedicinePsychomotor agitationRandomized controlled trialSedationMidazolamEmergency departmentHaloperidolPsychomotor learningAnesthesiaPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The rapid control of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior is paramount for the safety of patients and ED staff. The use of intramuscular (IM) ketamine in the pre-hospital and ED settings has demonstrated promising preliminary results to provide rapid and safe behavioral control. A prospective, randomized controlled trial is required to measure the potential superiority of IM ketamine compared to current standard care (IM benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics). METHODS: This will be a parallel, prospective, randomized, controlled trial of 5 mg/kg IM ketamine compared to a combination of 5 mg IM midazolam and 5 mg IM haloperidol. The study will enroll approximately 184 patients, randomized equally to two study arms. There will be one study visit during which study medication will be administered and assessments will be completed. A follow-up safety visit will occur on day 3. The primary objective of this study is to compare IM ketamine to a combination of IM midazolam and haloperidol with regards to the time required for adequate behavioral control, in minutes, in patients presenting to the ED with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior, as measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). DISCUSSION: We present a novel study to determine whether ketamine is a rapid and safe option, compared to a combination of midazolam and haloperidol for the sedation of patients presenting to the ED with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior. To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized controlled trial to compare ketamine to current standard care for this indication. We have attempted to address numerous logistical issues with the design of this study including a waiver of consent, ensuring adequate blinding of outcome assessors, patient enrolment, and data monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03375671 . Registered on 18 December 2017.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.005

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207