Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review

Ostermann, Marlies E., Keenan, Sean P., Seiferling, Roxanne A., Sibbald, William J.·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Sedation has become an integral part of critical care practice in minimizing patient discomfort; however, sedatives have adverse effects and the potential to prolong mechanical ventilation, which may increase health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine which form of sedation is associated with optimal sedation, the shortest time to extubation, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. DATA SOURCES: A key word search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration databases and hand searches of 6 anesthesiology journals from 1980 to June 1998. Experts and industry representatives were contacted, personal files were searched, and reference lists of relevant primary and review articles were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies included were randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation and requiring short-term or long-term sedation. At least 2 sedative agents had to be compared and the quality of sedation, time to extubation, or length of ICU stay analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on population, intervention, outcome, and methodological quality were extracted in duplicate by 2 of 3 investigators using 8 validity criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 49 identified randomized controlled trials, 32 met our selection criteria; 20 studied short-term sedation and 14, long-term sedation. Of these, 20 compared propofol with midazolam. Most trials were not double-blind and did not report or standardize important cointerventions. Propofol provides at least as effective sedation as midazolam and results in a faster time to extubation, with an increased risk of hypotension and higher cost. Insufficient data exist to determine effect on length of stay in the ICU. Isoflurane demonstrated some advantages over midazolam, and ketamine had a more favorable hemodynamic profile than fentanyl in patients with head injuries. CONCLUSION: Considering the widespread use of sedation for critically ill patients, more large, high-quality, randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of different agents for short-term and long-term sedation are warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.283.11.1451

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Ostermann, M. E., Keenan, S. P., Seiferling, R. A., & Sibbald, W. J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-03-15
Volume
283
Issue
11
Pages
1451
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1967251199
Cited by
389
References
2
FWCI
20.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.11.1451
The paper
Ostermann, M. E., Keenan, S. P., Seiferling, R. A., & Sibbald, W. J. (2000). Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.11.1451

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.