Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26425366›Full record

ArticleCritical care research and practice2015

Open and Closed Endotracheal Suctioning and Arterial Blood Gas Values: A Single-Blind Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial.

Azam Faraji, Alireza Khatony, Gholamreza Moradi, Alireza Abdi, Mansour Rezaei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Azam FarajiKermanshah School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Alireza KhatonyKermanshah School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Gholamreza MoradiImam Ali Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Alireza AbdiKermanshah School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mansour RezaeiSchool of Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim. This study was aimed at comparing the effects of the open and closed suctioning techniques on the arterial blood gas values in patients undergoing open-heart surgery. Methods. In a clinical trial, we recruited 42 patients after open-heart surgery in an educational hospital. Each patient randomly underwent both open and closed suctioning. ABGs, PaO2, SaO2, PaCO2, were analyzed before and one, five, and fifteen minutes after each suctioning episode. Results. At first the pressure of oxygen in arterial blood increased; however, this increase in the open technique was greater than that of the closed system (P < 0.001). The pressure of oxygen decreased five and fifteen minutes after both suctioning techniques (P < 0.05). The trends of carbon dioxide variations after the open and closed techniques were upward and downward, respectively. Moreover, the decrease in the level of oxygen saturation five and fifteen minutes after the open suctioning was greater than that of the closed suctioning technique (P < 0.05).  Conclusion. Arterial blood gas disturbances in the closed suctioning technique were less than those of the open technique. Therefore, to eliminate the unwanted effects of endotracheal suctioning on the arterial blood gases, the closed suctioning technique is recommended.

Identifiers

PMID26425366
PMCPMC4573878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.