MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407835493 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006574

A Focused Update to the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Anxiety, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

2025· article· en· W4407835493 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberley Lewis, Michele C. Balas, Joanna L. Stollings, Molly McNett, Timothy D. Girard, Gérald Chanques, Michelle E. Kho, Pratik P. Pandharipande, Gerald L. Weinhouse, Nathan E. Brummel, Linda L. Chlan, Makayla Cordoza, Jeremiah J. Duby, Céline Gélinas, Erin L. Hall-Melnychuk, Anna Krupp, Patricia Louzon, Judith A. Tate, Bethany Young, Ron Jennings, Anitra Hines, Chris Ross, Kallirroi Laiya Carayannopoulos, Janet Aldrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDexcomAmerican Association of Critical-Care NursesU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumSedationAnxietyEmergence deliriumAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineClinical PracticePsychomotor agitationPain managementPsychiatryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Critically ill adults are at risk for a variety of distressing and consequential symptoms both during and after an ICU stay. Management of these symptoms can directly influence outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to update and expand the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. PANEL DESIGN: The interprofessional inclusive guidelines task force was composed of 24 individuals including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and ICU survivors. The task force developed evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: The task force focused on five main content areas as they pertain to adult ICU patients: anxiety (new topic), agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption. Using the GRADE approach, we conducted a rigorous systematic review for each population, intervention, control, and outcome question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, assessed the quality of evidence, and then performed the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. In adult patients admitted to the ICU, the task force issued conditional recommendations to use dexmedetomidine over propofol for sedation, provide enhanced mobilization/rehabilitation over usual mobilization/rehabilitation, and administer melatonin. The task force was unable to issue recommendations on the administration of benzodiazepines to treat anxiety, and the use of antipsychotics to treat delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines task force provided recommendations for pharmacologic management of agitation/sedation and sleep, and nonpharmacologic management of immobility in critically ill adults. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's clinical status.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.237
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.237
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.015
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations171
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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