MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213693569 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1014725/v1

Processed Electroencephalogram-Based Monitoring to Guide Sedation in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and International Expert Panel-Based Consensus Recommendations

2021· review· en· W3213693569 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Rasulo, Philip Hopkins, Francisco Lobo, Pierre Pandin, Basil Matta, Carla Carozzi, Stefano Romagnoli, Anthony Absalom, Rafael Badenes, Thomas P. Bleck, Anselmo Caricato, Jan Claassen, André Denault, Cristina Honorato-Cía, Geert Meyfroidt, Ida Nardiello, Finn M. Radtke, Zaccaria Ricci, Chiara Robba, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Paul Vespa, Massimo Lamperti

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illSedationIntensive care medicineMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BackgroundThe literature related to the use of processed EEG (pEEG) for depth of sedation (DOS) monitoring is increasing, however it is unclear how to use this type of monitoring for critical care patients within the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature according to the Grade of Recommendation assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The modified Delphi method was utilised by a team of experts to produce statements and recommendations derived from study questions. Three separate online rounds discussing 89 statements categorized into four domains were formulated. The panelists rated the appropriateness of each statement and were able to suggest modifications or addition of statements. An analysis of anonymised ratings of the statements by part of the panel followed each Delphi round and previously validated criteria were used to define appropriateness and consensus.ResultsLevel of evidence regarding the four domains was very low. Fourteen panelists participated in the Delphi rounds and consensus was reached for 28 out of 89 statements, from which the reccomendations were created. The main findings were that DOS monitoring should be performed in critically ill patients whenever clinical evaluation is not possible, it should be performed by continuous pEEG techniques and the resulting data depicted with graphical tools to facilitate detection of excessive sedation, a potential cause of burst-suppression, and finally, structured training is suggested to achieve a basic pEEG competency.ConclusionsAlthough evidence on using DOS monitors in ICU is scarce and further research is required in order to better define the benefits of using pEEG, the results of this consensus highlight the general agreement that critically-ill patients would benefit from this type of neuromonitoring.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.013
Bibliometrics0.0200.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→