MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413100393 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000001297

Evaluation of Objective Sedation Monitoring Practices in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413100393 on OpenAlexaff
Natalia Jaworska, Areej Hezam, Thérèse G. Poulin, Julie Kromm, Lisa Burry, Daniel J. Niven, Kirsten M. Fiest

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationMechanical ventilationMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryStrictly standardized mean differenceSedativeCINAHLMEDLINEElectroencephalographyAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if objective sedation monitoring practices reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and other clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes in critically ill adult patients. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO, and the grey literature. STUDY SELECTION: Observational or interventional original research studies, conducted in adult critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation, evaluating any objective sedation monitoring practice (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and reporting on duration of mechanical ventilation or other secondary outcomes (e.g., length of stay) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Meta-analysis was performed for pooled estimates of the primary outcome and each individual secondary outcome using random-effects modeling. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty studies (3410 patients) were included with 15 studies evaluating processed EEG monitoring, 2 evaluating EEG monitoring, and 3 evaluating processed facial electromyography (EMG). Processed EEG was not associated with reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.33; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.25; I2 = 84.4%). Secondary outcomes of processed EEG monitoring showed decreased hospital length of stay (days) (SMD -0.89; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.62; I2 = 13.4%), reduced total sedative dose (reported in propofol equivalents, mg) (SMD -1.29; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.31; I2 = 96.6%), and reduced total opioid dose (reported in morphine equivalents, mg) (SMD -0.40; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.04; I2 = 77.0%). Processed facial EMG was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03-1.90; I2 = 0.00%). Risk of bias was serious for 65% (n = 13/20) of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Processed EEG monitoring is not associated with reduced duration of mechanical ventilation but may be associated with reduced sedative and opioid exposure and decreased hospital length of stay. Processed facial EMG monitoring may be associated with increased adverse events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.474
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.474
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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