Comparative efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions on sleep quality in people who are critically ill: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
International Journal of Nursing Studies, ISSN: 0020-7489, Vol: 130, Page: 104220
2022
- 10Citations
- 5Usage
- 76Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- Usage5
- Abstract Views5
- Captures76
- Readers76
- 76
Article Description
Disrupted sleep is a critical and highly prevalent concern among critically ill patients requiring intensive care. However, the question of which nonpharmacological intervention represents the best strategy for improving sleep quality remains unanswered. To compare the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions in improving sleep quality in people who are critically ill. Databases, namely PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I, were searched from their inception up until January 15, 2021, for relevant randomised controlled trials. No language or time period restrictions were applied. Only randomised controlled trials examining the effects of nonpharmacological interventions on sleep among adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to an intensive care unit were included. A random-effects model was used for data analyses. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021232004). Twenty randomised controlled trials involving 1,207 participants were included. Music combined with earplugs and eye masks (standardised mean difference =1.64), eye masks alone (0.98), aromatherapy (0.87), and earplugs combined with eye masks (0.61) significantly improved sleep quality compared with routine care (all p <0.05). Music combined with earplugs and eye masks significantly enhanced sleep quality in comparison with music (1.34), earplugs combined with eye masks (1.03), and nursing intervention (1.76, all p <0.05). Earplugs alone was less likely to have effects on sleep quality improvement compared with routine care. Eye masks alone and music combined with earplugs and eye masks appear to be the most effective interventions for improving sleep quality in people who are critically ill. Critical care nurses should incorporate the use of eye masks alone or music combined with eye masks into sleep care.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748922000499; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104220; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85128829812&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35395573; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020748922000499; https://ro.uow.edu.au/test2021/4633; https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10180&context=test2021; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104220
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know