ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2019
Oral care and nursing home-acquired pneumonia.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2019. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sources Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Infrastructure, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry, WHO Clinical Trials Registry, Sciencepaper Online, 19 Chinese dental and nursing journals. Reference lists of included studies were also screened.Study selection Studies were included if they explored oral care with the purpose of reducing pneumonia compared to no oral care, usual care or other oral care measures. Only randomised controlled trials were included which could be either parallel design or cluster RCTs with randomisation by care facility. No restrictions were placed on language, year of publication or publication status.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers undertook screening for inclusion, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. The Cochrane tool for risk of bias was used to assess quality of the studies. Synthesis was mainly narrative, though numerical results were combined where feasible.Results Four studies were included, all of which were parallel RCTs. All were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. One study suggested that oral care may reduce pneumonia associated death, though evidence was low quality and should be treated with caution. There was no high quality evidence available to indicate which oral care methods may be most effective in reducing pneumonia.Conclusions It was not possible to establish the effects of professional oral care on nursing home-acquired pneumonia due to the limited number of studies and low quality evidence. Further trials are needed to draw reliable conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30903120What 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.