Trial reportJournal of advanced nursing2019
Nursing oral suction intervention to reduce aspiration and ventilator events (NO-ASPIRATE): A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of advanced nursing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a less invasive suction protocol on pain and physiological stability in preterm infants receiving non-ınvasive ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Research on Effects of Oropharyngeal Aspiration on Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with Cerebral Hemorrhage in ICU.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Intubation Setting, Aspiration, and Ventilator-Associated Conditions.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2020Trial
- Impact of deep oropharyngeal suctioning on microaspiration, ventilator events, and clinical outcomes: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of advanced nursing · 2019Trial
- Risk Factors and Prognosis Analyses of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia in Elderly Critically Ill Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Based on Machine Learning.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Nursing strategies for the mechanically ventilated patient.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
- Pepsin A in Tracheal Secretions From Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2021Article
- Pulmonary Microbiome of Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: Changes Over Time.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe primary aim of this study is to compare an oropharyngeal suction intervention versus usual care on microaspiration in intubated patients. Secondary aims are to evaluate the intervention on ventilator-associated condition rates, time to occurrence and compare tracheal-oral α-amylase ratios between groups.
designProspective randomized clinical trial.
methodsThe study received funding from the National Institutes of Health in February 2014 and Institutional Review Board approval in July 2013. Over 4 years, a convenience sample of 600 orally intubated, ventilated adult patients will be enrolled within 24 hr of intubation. The target sample is 400 participants randomized to the two groups. The intervention involves enhanced suctioning of the mouth and oropharynx every 4 hr, while the usual care group receives a sham suctioning. The research team will deliver usual oral care to all patients every 4 hr and collect oral and tracheal specimens every 12 hr, to quantify α-amylase levels to detect aspiration of oral secretions. Study completers must be enrolled at least 36 hr (baseline and three paired samples). Outcomes include α-amylase levels, percent of positive specimens, ventilator-associated conditions, length of stay, ventilator hours, and discharge disposition. DISCUSSION: Enrolment has closed, and data analysis has begun. Subgroup analyses emerged, contributing to future research knowledge. IMPACT: Standardized interventions have reduced but do not address all risk factors associated with ventilator-associated conditions. This study provides the potential to reduce microaspiration and associated sequelae in critically ill, intubated patients.
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.