MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158685742 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005049

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III

2021· article· en· W3158685742 on OpenAlexafffund
Denham S. Ward, Anthony Absalom, Leanne M. Aitken, Michele C. Balas, David Brown, Lisa Burry, Elizabeth Colantuoni, Douglas B. Coursin, John W. Devlin, Franklin Dexter, Robert H. Dworkin, Talmage D. Egan, Doug Elliott, Ingrid Egerod, Pamela Flood, Gilles L. Fraser, Timothy D. Girard, David Gozal, Ramona O. Hopkins, John P. Kress, Mervyn Maze, Dale M. Needham, Pratik P. Pandharipande, Richard R. Riker, Daniel I. Sessler, Steven L. Shafer, Yahya Shehabi, Claudia Spies, Lena S. Sun, Avery Tung, Richard D. Urman

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteOffice of the President, University of CaliforniaMedical Center, University of RochesterGlenmark PharmaceuticalsNovartis PharmaU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthAstellas PharmaMcGill UniversityBaxter Healthcare CorporationUniversity of CambridgeBoston Scientific CorporationEVER Neuro PharmaPfizerBiogenUniversity of RochesterMedicines CompanyAcelRx PharmaceuticalsTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesCelgeneGlaxoSmithKlineJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversité de MontréalAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineSedationMechanical ventilationCritically illIntensive care medicineClinical trialAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

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)0.451
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.620
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4510.620
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.021
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0120.008
Research integrity0.0310.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.010

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.252 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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