ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2019
Evaluation of Perioperative Ventilation Strategies: National Survey Study.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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, 0 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLung injury can develop in the perioperative period due to ventilation management techniques. Thus, the attitude of anaesthetists on protective ventilation (PV) practice comes into question. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the perioperative ventilation practice of anaesthetists and trainees on anaesthesiology by a survey study.
methodsSurvey form was sent to all doctors registered to TARD via electronic mail. The participants were asked questions involving PV parameters such as low tidal volume (TV) according to ideal body weight (BW), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), FiO2 use and recruitment manoeuvre (RM) application. In total, 411 doctors who answered the survey were included to the study. Application rates of PV parameters and causes were compared within the answers obtained. P<0.05 was accepted statistically significant.
resultsPV was practised by 19.4% of the participants. Those who preferred low TV used ideal BW more frequently (p<0.001). PEEP of 4-6 cm H2O was commonly used (p<0.001). The participants mostly preferred FiO2 of 1.0 (60.4%), and application rate of RM was found to be 17.2%. The use of all PV parameters was detected to be higher among instructors than among other groups.
conclusionIn our study, application ratio of PV with all its parameters was found to be lower. Among the parameters, while low TV according to ideal BW and PEEP were applied at higher ratios, the use of RM and low oxygen percentage were applied less frequently. While PV was found to be useful in terms of perioperative ventilation strategies, low practice rates may result from habits besides lack of knowledge and experience; comprehensive and quality education studies are needed to overcome this.
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.