ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2015
[Tolerance of endotracheal tubes in patients on mechanical ventilation].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2015. 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.
- Bronchoscopy versus an endotracheal tube mounted camera for the peri-interventional visualization of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy - a prospective, randomized trial (VivaPDT).Critical care (London, England) · 2017Trial
- [Positioning therapy and early mobilization in intensive care units : Findings from the current 2015 guidelines].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern concepts for sedation and analgesia and guidelines recommend light analgesia and sedation, so that patients on mechanically ventilation are more awake, compared to previous concepts. Hence, these patients are more alert and able to experience their situation on the ventilator and their endotracheal tube (ETT). PROBLEM: There is currently no convincing evidence of how patients tolerate the tube under present conditions, which interventions could help them, or whether they want to be sedated deeper because of the tube. Based upon our own observations, a broad range of reactions are possible. PURPOSE: The tolerance of the ETT in intensive care patients was explored.
methodA systematic literature research without time constraints in the databases PubMed and CINAHL was performed. Included were quantitative and qualitative studies written in German or English that investigated tolerance of the ETT in adult intensive care patients. Excluded were anesthetic studies including in- and extubation immediately before and after operations.
resultsOf the 2348 hits, 14 studies were included, including 4 qualitative studies about the experience of intensive care, 8 quantitative studies including 2 randomized controlled studies, and 2 studies with a mixed approach. Within the studies different aspects could be identified, which may in- or decrease the tolerance of an ETT. Aspects like breathlessness, pain during endotracheal suctioning and inability to speak decrease the tolerance. Information, the presence of relatives and early mobilization appear to increase the tolerance.
conclusionTolerance of the ETT is a complex phenomenon. A reflected and critical evaluation of the behavior of the patient with an ETT is recommended. Interventions that increase the tolerance of the ETT should be adapted to the situation of the patient and should be evaluated daily.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25527237What 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.