ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
A quality assessment of evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022Trial
- The Potential of Probiotics in Reducing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Literature-Based Analysis.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Analysis of Hospital-Acquired Infections in a Chinese Specialized Rehabilitation Hospital: A Five-Year Surveillance Study (2020-2024).Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- A Protocol of a Guideline to Establish the Evidence Ecosystem of Acupuncture.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Levels of evidence supporting clinical practice guidelines on invasive aspergillosis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) pertaining to ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) have been published by domestic and international organizations, but their qualities have not been reported.
methodsA systematic search of the literature was performed up to July 2018 for relevant guidelines. Guidelines were eligible for inclusion if they incorporated recommendation statements for prevention and/or management in adults or children with VAP and were developed on a systematic evidence-based method. Four reviewers evaluated each guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, which comprises 23 items organized into six domains in addition to two overall items.
resultsThirteen EBGs were identified for review. An overall high degree of agreement among reviewers was reached [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), 0.885; 95% CI, 0.862-0.905] during their review. The scores (mean, range) for the six AGREE domains were:
conclusionsThe overall quality of the identified EBGs pertaining to VAP was classified as moderate. The management of VAP varied by guideline. More high-quality evidence is needed to improve guideline recommendations.
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.