Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22369739›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2012

Nurses and ventilators.

Amal Jubran

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinician-Driven Design ofIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Amal JubranDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, 111N, 5th Avenue and Roosevelt Road, Hines, IL 60141, USA. ajubran@lumc.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the previous issue of Critical Care, Rose and colleagues report the results of a survey on the frequency with which ICU nurses are involved in decision-making in ventilator management. About 63 to 88% of the decisions were made by nurses in collaboration with physicians, and as much as 68% of ventilator adjustments were performed by nurses independent of physicians. Nurse involvement in decision-making was twice as likely in ICUs that use weaning protocols. The ICU nurse performs many roles, the most important being the continuous observation of a patient. The diversion of a nurse's attention from constant vigilance by performing tasks of no benefit, such as the use of weaning protocols, would be a most unfortunate turn of events.

Indexed as

HumansRespiration, ArtificialVentilator Weaning

Identifiers

PMID22369739
PMCPMC3396265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.