CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 328Anesthesia and Sedative AgentsIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersNausea and vomiting management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Motor Activity Assessment Scale: A valid and reliable sedation scale for use with mechanically ventilated patients in an adult surgical intensive care unit

Devlin, John W., Boleski, Gail, Mlynarek, Mark, Nerenz, David R., Peterson, Edward, Jankowski, Michelle, Horst, H. Mathilda, Zarowitz, Barbara J.·1999·Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1097/00003246-199907000-00008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the validity and reliability of a new sedation scale, the Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS). DESIGN: Prospective, psychometric evaluation. SETTING: Sixteen-bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of a 937-bed tertiary care, university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-five randomly selected, adult, mechanically ventilated, nonneurosurgical patients who were admitted to the SICU > or = 12 hrs after surgery and were not receiving neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTION: Four hundred assessments (eight per patient) were completed consecutively but independently, in pairs, at standardized times (both day and night) by two nurses who were preselected for each assessment from a pool of 32 pretrained SICU nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To estimate validity, paired assessments (four/patient) compared the MAAS result with the subjective assessment using a 10-cm visual analog sedation scale, the percent change in blood pressure and heart rate from the previous 4-hr baselines, and the number of recent agitation-related sequelae. To estimate reliability, paired assessments (four/patient) measured correlation between assessments of the same type (e.g., MAAS-MAAS). Generalized estimating equations, which accounted for the four repeated measures in each patient, supported MAAS validity by finding a linear trend between MAAS and the visual analog scale (p < .001), blood pressure (p < .001), heart rate (p < .001), and agitation-related sequelae (p < .001) end points. The MAAS (kappa = 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.94]) was found to be more reliable than subjective assessment using the visual analog scale (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.32 [95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.55]). CONCLUSIONS: The MAAS is a valid and reliable sedation scale for use with mechanically ventilated patients in the SICU. Further studies are warranted regarding the effect of MAAS implementation in our SICU on patient outcomes, such as quality of sedation and length of mechanical ventilation, as well as the use of the MAAS in other patient populations (e.g., medical).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-199907000-00008

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Armstrong, 1994, New Horiz, 2, 85
  2. Huskisson, 1982, J Rheumatol, 9, 768

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 324

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Devlin, J. W., Boleski, G., Mlynarek, M., Nerenz, D. R., Peterson, E., Jankowski, M., Horst, H. M., & Zarowitz, B. J.
Affiliations
Henry Ford Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1999-07
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
1271-1275
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00003246-199907000-00008
OpenAlex
W2012479097
Cited by
328
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 25
FWCI
12.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
sedation assessment, mechanical ventilation, surgical intensive care unit, postoperative sedation, agitation, visual analogue scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Care, Psychometrics, Psychomotor Agitation, Respiration, Artificial, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Drug Monitoring

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