SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2015
Selective oropharyngeal decontamination versus selective digestive decontamination in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can probiotics be an alternative to chlorhexidine for oral care in the mechanically ventilated patient? A multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled open trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Towards a holistic approach to pulmonary infections. Insights from the Sixth Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2024.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Review
- Management of Oro-Antral Communication: A Systemic Review of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Oropharyngeal Decontamination for Prevention of VAP in Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review.Journal of caring sciences · 2022Review
- Pathogenesis-Targeted Preventive Strategies for Multidrug Resistant Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Narrative Review.Microorganisms · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelective digestive decontamination (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) are associated with reduced mortality and infection rates among patients in intensive care units (ICUs); however, whether SOD has a superior effect than SDD remains uncertain. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare SOD with SDD in terms of clinical outcomes and antimicrobial resistance rates in patients who were critically ill.
methodsRCTs published in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically reviewed to compare the effects of SOD and SDD in patients who were critically ill. Outcomes included day-28 mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-acquired bacteremia, and prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs. Pooled estimates were performed using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among studies.
resultsA total of four RCTs involving 23,822 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Among patients whose admitting specialty was surgery, cardiothoracic surgery (57.3%) and neurosurgery (29.7%) were the two main types of surgery being performed. Pooled results showed that SOD had similar effects as SDD in day-28 mortality (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.08; P = 0.253), length of ICU stay (WMD = 0.00 days; 95% CI: -0.2, 0.2; P = 1.00), length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.00 days; 95% CI: -0.65, 0.65; P = 1.00), and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD =1.01 days; 95% CI: -0.01, 2.02; P = 0.053). On the other hand, compared with SOD, SDD had a lower day-28 mortality in surgical patients (RR =1.11; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.22; P = 0.050), lower incidence of ICU-acquired bacteremia (RR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.24, 1.54; P = 0.000), and lower rectal carriage of aminoglycosides (RR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.68, 2.58; P = 0.000), ciprofloxacin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (RR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.48, 2.29; P = 0.000), and respiratory carriage of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (RR = 2.50; 95% CI: 1.78, 3.5; P = 0.000).
conclusionSOD has similar effects as SDD in clinical outcomes, but has higher incidence of ICU-acquired bacteremia, and higher carriage of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. However, due to the high cost of SDD and the increased risk of development of antibiotic resistance with the widespread use of cephalosporins in SDD, we would recommend SOD as prophylactic antibiotic regimens in patients in the ICU. More well-designed, large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm our findings.
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.