ArticleMedicine2018
Effectiveness of intrahospital transportation of mechanically ventilated patients in medical intensive care unit by the rapid response team: A cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critically ill patients could experience various risks including life-threatening events during intrahospital transportation (IHT), with a global incidence of 20% to 79.8%. Evidence on the clinical benefits of the presence of specialized intensive care members such as the rapid response team (RRT) during their transportation is limited. We aimed to elucidate the RRT's effectiveness in promoting patient's safety outcomes during transportation by comparing with those transport by general members.A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2016 to February 2017, including critically ill patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) due to respiratory failure under mechanical ventilation. Patients who underwent out-of-ICU transportation supported by RRT members, including a portable ventilator, were categorized as the RRT group, whereas those transported by general members, such as residents or interns, were the general group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted due to several significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Adverse events were defined as any situation requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), any physiologic deteriorations requiring immediate intervention or equipment dysfunctions.The median age of the 184 subjects included was 72 (inter quartile range, 62-75) years, and 114 (62.3%) of them were male. Thirty-six (19.6%) transports were supported by RRT, with significant higher APACHE II score than general groups (36.7 ± 6.0 vs 32.4 ± 7.7, P = .002). There was no critical event requiring CPR in both groups. However, adverse events were more frequently observed in the RRT than the general group (27.8% vs 8.1%, P = .001). PSM revealed insignificant difference in adverse events (26.7% vs 10.0%, P = .228).In critically ill patients in the medical ICU, IHT supported by the RRT did not show a more preventative effect on adverse events than that by the general group.
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.