International Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium Practices: a prospective cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background While understanding of critical illness and delirium continue to evolve, the impact on clinical practice is often unknown and delayed. Our purpose was to provide insight into practice changes by characterizing analgesia and sedation usage and occurrence of delirium in different years and international regions. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of two multicenter, international, prospective cohort studies. Mechanically ventilated adults were followed for up to 28 days in 2010 and 2016. Proportion of days utilizing sedation, analgesia, and performance of a spontaneous awakening trial (SAT), and occurrence of delirium were described for each year and region and compared between years. Results A total of 14,281 patients from 6 international regions were analyzed. Proportion of days utilizing analgesia and sedation increased from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001 for each). Benzodiazepine use decreased in every region but remained the most common sedative in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Performance of SATs increased overall, driven mostly by the US/Canada region (24 to 35% of days with sedation, p < 0.001). Any delirium during admission increased from 7 to 8% of patients overall and doubled in the US/Canada region (17 to 36%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Analgesia and sedation practices varied widely across international regions and significantly changed over time. Opportunities for improvement in care include increasing delirium monitoring, performing SATs, and decreasing use of sedation, particularly benzodiazepines.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.331 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it