The published abstract of a systematic review and meta-analysis reports that alarm fatigue was substantial among intensive care unit nurses, although the pooled estimate varied markedly across studies. Twenty-three studies were included, and 11 contributed quantitative results. After alarm-fatigue scores from different instruments were converted to a common scale expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score, the random-effects meta-analysis produced a pooled value of 51.66% (95% CI, 42.33–60.99%). Between-study heterogeneity was extremely high at I² = 99.6%, so the authors describe this estimate as an exploratory descriptive summary rather than a prevalence estimate or clinical threshold.
The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidance and was registered in PROSPERO as CRD420261429354. According to the abstract, the researchers searched major databases and grey-literature sources for literature published from January 2001 through May 2026. They included intensive-care studies reporting extractable alarm-fatigue scores in the quantitative synthesis. Scores measured with different instruments were transformed to a 0–100% scale of maximum possible score and pooled with a random-effects model. Because the associated factors were methodologically heterogeneous, they were synthesized narratively rather than statistically.
Factors reported as associated with alarm fatigue included false or non-actionable alarms, a high alarm burden, inadequate alarm-management knowledge and training, night shifts, overtime, workload, role overload, organizational limitations and technology-related difficulties. The abstract also reports associations with burnout, compassion fatigue, perceived stress, reduced nursing performance and medical-error tendency. These findings describe relationships reported in the included studies, not established causes. Randomized studies included in the review indicated that structured alarm-management education could reduce alarm fatigue and unnecessary alarm exposure, but the abstract does not provide pooled effect estimates for those interventions.
The review’s main limitation is the predominantly cross-sectional, self-reported and heterogeneous body of evidence, which limits confidence in many of the reported associations. Objective alarm data and validated patient-safety outcomes were not consistently available, and the very high heterogeneity further restricts interpretation of the pooled score. The authors call for prospective studies that incorporate those data. Based on the supplied abstract, the evidence supports alarm fatigue as a multifactorial occupational and patient-safety concern among ICU nurses while showing that the prevalence, associated factors and intervention effects remain uncertain.
Subject of Research: Alarm fatigue severity, associated factors and alarm-management interventions among ICU nurses
Article Title: Alarm fatigue severity and associated factors among intensive care unit nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Article References: Hu, Y., Ye, W., Zhang, H., & Ma, C. (2026). Alarm fatigue severity and associated factors among intensive care unit nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05328-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05328-x
Keywords: alarm fatigue, intensive care nurses, systematic review, meta-analysis, patient safety, occupational health, alarm management, burnout, Alarm, fatigue, severity, associated
News Source: Ophelia Keating. (October 20, 2026). Alarm fatigue severity and associated factors among intensive care unit nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scienmag.
