ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2013
A new nasal cavity nursing methods application in patients with mechanical ventilation.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Nanosil Mouthwash on the Preventing Pulmonary Infection in Intensive Care Unit: a Randomized Clinical Trial.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2018Trial
- [Treatment algorithm: nasal care in critically ill patients].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare different nasal cavity nursing methods on mechanically ventilated patients.
methodsAccording to acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHEII), 615 cases of mechanically ventilated patients were divided into group A, group B and group C by stratified random method. Traditional oral nursing plus aspirating secretions from oral cavity and nasal cavity q6h were done in group A. Based on methods in group A, normal saline was used for cleaning nasal cavity in group B. Besides the methods in group A, atomizing nasal cleansing a6h was also used in group C. Incidence rate of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) and APACHE II scores after administrating were compared. The correlation between APACHE II score and outcomes was analyzed by Spearman-rank correlation.
resultsIn group A, incidence of VAP was 36.76%, group B was 30.24%, group C was 20.38%, and the difference was statistically significant. APACHE II scores in group C were significantly lower compared with group A and B. APACHE II score was negatively correlated with clinical outcomes.
conclusionsFor mechanically ventilated patients, nasal nursing can't be ignored and the new atomizing nasal cleaning is an effective method for VAP prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.