Parental presence in the pediatric intensive care unit reduces postoperative sedative requirements: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although critically ill pediatric patients can benefit from the use of sedation, it can cause side effects and even iatrogenic complications. Since pediatric patients cannot adequately express the intensity or location of the pain, discriminating the cause of their irritability and agitation can be more complicated than in adults. Thus, sedation therapy for children requires more careful attention. AIM: To evaluate the association of the internal parental care protocol and the reduction in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) postoperatively. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was carried out in the PICU of the tertiary medical center in Kazakhstan. The internal parental care protocol was developed and implemented by critical care team. During the pandemic, restrictions were also placed on parental presence in the PICU. We compare two groups: During restriction and after return to normal. The level of agitation was evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to examine associations of parental care with sedation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were included in the study. Of them, 167 patients were hospitalized during and 122 after the restrictions of parental care. In multivariate analysis, parental care was associated with lower odds of prescribing diazepam (odds ratio = 0.11, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.25), controlling for age, sex, cerebral palsy, and type of surgery. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that parental care was associated only with decreased odds of prescribing sedative drugs, while no differences were observed for analgesics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".