Trial reportBMJ open2018
Normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation And lung Recruitment versus no lung recruitment with paediatric Endotracheal Suction: the NARES trial. A study protocol for a pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative dexmedetomidine compared to midazolam in children undergoing open-heart surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 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
introductionEndotracheal suction (ETS) is a frequent and necessary airway intervention for the intubated child. The aim of ETS is to clear the endotracheal tube and airways of respiratory secretions; however, the methods of performing ETS are varied. Internationally a number of ETS treatments are in use. Many have not been rigorously evaluated in a randomised controlled trial setting, and it is uncertain whether any are associated with better outcomes for the critically ill child. With approximately 50% of paediatric intensive care admissions requiring intubation, ETS interventions that maximise the efficacy and minimise the complications of ETS could translate to improved health for substantial numbers of critically ill children, and significant cost savings. The primary aim of the study is to examine two ETS interventions, normal saline instillation and lung recruitment, to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full efficacy trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NARES (Normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation And lung Recruitment versus no lung recruitment with paediatric Endotracheal Suction) is a single-centre, pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial conducted in a tertiary referral paediatric centre in Brisbane, Australia. Children (aged 0-16 years) are eligible if they are intubated with an endotracheal tube and mechanically ventilated. Two intervention pairs will be compared using a 2×2 factorial design: (1) normal saline instillation versus no normal saline instillation; and (2) lung recruitment versus no lung recruitment. The primary outcome is study feasibility measured by a composite analysis of eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence and missing data. Secondary outcomes are ventilator-associated pneumonia, SpO ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to conduct the research has been obtained. Dissemination of the research findings will be untaken, guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement recommendations. Protocol content was guided by the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials 2013 statement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000609358; Pre-results.
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.