MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PP260 Topic: AS25–Sedation/Analgesia/Delirium/Withdrawal Syndrome/Other: COMFORT-HOLDING IN PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE UNITS WORLDWIDE– ANALYSIS OF THE PARK-PICU POINT PREVALENCE DATA

2024· article· en· W4404041677 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie A. Lee, Krista Wollny, Sapna R. Kudchadkar, Erwin Ista, Kirsten M. Fiest, Karen Choong

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumSedationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineEmergence deliriumAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims & Objectives: Patient discomfort is associated with negative sequelae. Despite recommendations for non-pharmacological therapies, a paucity of evidence informs their use and analgosedation remains the standard of care for PICU comfort. Comfort-holding in NICUs decreases neonatal mortality, and discomfort; improves stability and cognitive development; and decreases maternal stress. Little is known about comfort-holding in PICUs. We aimed to describe the current state of comfort-holding in PICUs. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from the PARK-PICU study, which included children admitted for > 72 hours to 13 Canadian, 38 European, and 82 American PICUs during 2 days in 2018. Prevalence of holding, adverse events and patient characteristics were described. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with comfort-holding. Results: 2,362 patients were included and 35.5% (n=839) received comfort-holding. Most patients receiving comfort-holding were < 2 years (n=738, 88.0%) with a median weight of 6.2kg (IQR 3.1-9.8kg). Safety events occurred in 3.1% (62/1998) of comfort-holding events. The odds of comfort-holding increased with higher nurse:patient ratio (OR 1.50; 95% CI: 1.12-2.02) and family presence (OR 8.42; 95%CI: 6.13-11.56); and decreased with older age (reference 0-2 years) [3-6 years (OR 0.17; 95%CI: 0.11-0.25), 7-12 years (OR 0.05; 95%CI: 0.03-0.09), 13-18 years (OR 0.04; 95%CI: 0.02-0.07)], invasive ventilation (OR 0.49; 95%CI: 0.36-0.67), and presence of a dialysis line, ECLS cannula or VAD (OR 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11-0.67). Conclusions: Comfort-holding is not widely practiced in PICUs. Given the low safety event rate and potential to optimize PICU comfort, further study of it’s effectiveness and implementation is warranted. Keywords: comfort holding, PICU, therapeutic cuddles, early mobility, Pain, agitation, and delirium

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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