Intensive care unit interventions to promote sleep and circadian biology in reducing incident delirium: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE/OBJECTIVES: Despite plausible pathophysiological mechanisms, research is needed to confirm the relationship between sleep, circadian rhythm and delirium in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this review is to summarise existing studies promoting, in whole or in part, the normalisation of sleep and circadian biology and their impact on the incidence, prevalence, duration and/or severity of delirium in ICU. METHODS: A sensitive search of electronic databases and conference proceedings was completed in March 2023. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies of any design that evaluated in-ICU non-pharmacological, pharmacological or mixed intervention strategies for promoting sleep or circadian biology and their association with delirium, as assessed at least daily. Data were extracted and independently verified. RESULTS: Of 7886 citations, we included 50 articles. Commonly evaluated interventions include care bundles (n=20), regulation or administration of light therapy (n=5), eye masks and/or earplugs (n=5), one nursing care-focused intervention and pharmacological intervention (eg, melatonin and ramelteon; n=19). The association between these interventions and incident delirium or severity of delirium was mixed. As multiple interventions were incorporated in included studies of care bundles and given that there was variable reporting of compliance with individual elements, identifying which components might have an impact on delirium is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarises the existing literature as it relates to ICU sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) and delirium in ICU. Further studies are needed to better understand the role of ICU SCD promotion interventions in delirium mitigation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".