Literature DB >> 23989092

Psychometric analysis of subjective sedation scales in critically ill adults.

Bryce R H Robinson1, Melanie Berube, Juliana Barr, Richard Riker, Céline Gélinas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze the development and psychometric properties of subjective sedation scales developed for critically ill adult patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: English-only publications through December 2012 with at least 30 patients older than 18 years, which included the key words of adult, critically ill, subjective sedation scale, sedation scale, validity, and reliability. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers evaluated the psychometric properties using a standardized sedation scale psychometric scoring system. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 19,000+ citations extracted for the 2013 Society of Critical Care Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation and Delirium and from December 2010 to 2012, 36 articles were identified compassing 11 sedation scales. The scale development process, psychometric properties, feasibility, and implementation of sedation scales were analyzed using a 0-20 scoring system. Two scales demonstrated scores indicating "very good" published psychometric properties: Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (19.5) and the Sedation-Agitation Scale (19). Scores with "moderate" properties include the Vancouver Interaction and Calmness Scale (14.3), Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (13.7), Ramsay Sedation Scale (13.2), Minnesota Sedation Assessment Tool (13), and the Nursing Instrument for the Communication of Sedation (12.8). Scales with "low" properties included the Motor Activity Assessment Scale (11.5) and the Sedation Intensive Care Score (10.5). The New Sheffield Sedation Scale (8.5) and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (3.7) demonstrated "very low" published properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, and using a predetermined psychometric scoring system, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Sedation-Agitation Scale are the most valid and reliable subjective sedation scales for use in critically ill adult patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23989092     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a16879

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  6 in total

1.  Predisposing factors, clinical assessment, management and outcomes of agitation in the trauma intensive care unit.

Authors:  Saeed Mahmood; Omaima Mahmood; Ayman El-Menyar; Mohammad Asim; Hassan Al-Thani
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2018

2.  Predictors of thirst in intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Nancy A Stotts; Shoshana R Arai; Bruce A Cooper; Judith E Nelson; Kathleen A Puntillo
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2014-08-10       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  A randomized controlled proof-of-concept trial of early sedation management using Responsiveness Index monitoring in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Authors:  Markus Kaila; Kirsty Everingham; Petteri Lapinlampi; Petra Peltola; Mika O K Särkelä; Kimmo Uutela; Timothy S Walsh
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 9.097

4.  National survey and point prevalence study of sedation practice in UK critical care.

Authors:  Alvin Richards-Belle; Ruth R Canter; G Sarah Power; Emily J Robinson; Henrik Reschreiter; Hannah Wunsch; Sheila E Harvey
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Non-Intubated Older Patients with Agitated Delirium After Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Yang Deng; Zhijun Qin; Qianyun Wu; Linsong Liu; Xi Yang; Xuan Ju; Ying Zhang; Lei Liu
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 4.319

Review 6.  The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments.

Authors:  C B Terwee; C A C Prinsen; M G Ricci Garotti; A Suman; H C W de Vet; L B Mokkink
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.147

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.