Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770409›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluation of different sedation scales in the ICU management of COVID-19 patients.

Sarah F Al-Taie, Muzdalifa Mejbel Fedwi, Mohammed Merza, Mohammad Y Alshahrani, M M Rekha, Mayank Kundlas, J Bethanney Janney, Samir Sahoo, Hayder Ridha-Salman, Mohsen Khosravi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sarah F Al-TaieDepartment of Biotechnology, College of Science, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Muzdalifa Mejbel FedwiMedical Laboratory Techniques Department, College of Health and Medical Technology, University of Al-maarif, Anbar, Iraq.
Mohammed MerzaClinical Analysis Department, College of Pharmacy, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
Mohammad Y AlshahraniCentral Labs, King Khalid University, AlQura'a, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
M M RekhaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, School of Sciences, JAIN (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Mayank KundlasCentre for Research Impact and Outcome, Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Rajpura, Punjab, India.
J Bethanney JanneyDepartment of Biomedical, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Samir SahooDepartment of General Medicine, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan (Deemed to be University), Bhubaneswar, India.
Hayder Ridha-SalmanCollege of Pharmacy, Al-Mustaqbal University, Babylon, Iraq.
Mohsen KhosraviDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, 9813913777, Iran. dr_khosravi2016@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and diagnostic validity of different sedation scales for COVID-19 patients in the ICU, focusing on optimizing patient management and outcomes amidst unique pathophysiological challenges. Seventy-three mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients sedated with intravenous ketamine (10-20 µg/kg/min) were evaluated at Ali Ibn Abi Talib Hospital, Zahedan, Iran, in 2022 and 2023. The sample size was calculated to detect significant differences with a 95% confidence level. Data collection included demographic information and four sedation scales: Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale, Motor Activity Assessment Scale, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Ramsay Sedation Scale. The primary outcome measure was inter-rater reliability, quantified by Cohen's Kappa coefficients. Diagnostic validity (criterion validity) was examined by comparing scale scores across demographic and clinical variables. Statistical analyses included the Friedman test, Kappa statistics, and independent T-tests. The study involved patients with a mean age of 56.5 ± 14.1 years, ranging from 37 to 66 years, with 67.1% being male (n = 49) and 32.9% female (n = 24). The Friedman test showed no significant differences in sedation scores among raters or scales (p-values: Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale = 0.89, Motor Activity Assessment Scale = 0.67, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale = 0.76, Ramsay Sedation Scale = 0.81). Inter-rater reliability was high across all scales, with Kappa coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.89. Criterion validity analysis indicated no significant differences in sedation scores based on age, gender, ICU stay duration, or presence of comorbidities (all p > 0.05). These findings indicate that current sedation scales offer consistent evaluations for ICU COVID-19 patients, unaffected by rater bias or background factors. This reliability in clinical settings suggests their effective use for consistent patient assessments, potentially enhancing outcomes.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hypnotics and SedativesIntensive Care UnitsProcedural SedationAdultAgedCritical CareFemaleHumansIranKetamineMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRespiration, ArtificialSARS-CoV-2Hypnotics and SedativesKetamine2019-nCoV infectionCOVID-19ICUIntensive care unitSARS-CoV-2 infectionScaleSedation

Identifiers

PMID40770409
PMCPMC12328579

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.