Trial reportInternational wound journal2020
Securement to prevent device-related pressure injuries in the intensive care unit: A randomised controlled feasibility study.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy of Endotracheal Tube Holders Versus Traditional Securing Methods in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nursing in critical care · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review: Incidence and prevalence of mucous membrane pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical and cost effectiveness of a system for turning and positioning intensive care unit patients, when compared to usual care turning and positioning devices, for the prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries. A randomised controlled trial.International wound journal · 2023Trial
- Securement to prevent device-related pressure injuries in the intensive care unit: A randomised controlled feasibility study.International wound journal · 2020Trial
- Demographic Factor Analysis on the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Status of Nurses in Preventing Device-Related Pressure Injuries: A Multicentric Cross-sectional Study.Advances in skin & wound care · 2025Article
- Evaluation of nasogastric tube fixation methods: adhesion, displacement and skin integrity.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Medical device-related pressure injuries are the most common cause of pressure injuries within the intensive care unit, in particular those caused by nasogastric tubes and endotracheal tubes. There are several known methods, which can alleviate the pressure of these devices on the skin surface to reduce the rate of these injuries. To determine the feasibility of conducting a larger, adequately powered trial testing, several clinically effective interventions to reduce the incidence of medical device-related pressure injuries caused by these devices. Patients were recruited into both study arms and received one of three different methods of skin protection for both arms. Outcome measures included fidelity to the processes of care protocol, recruitment potential, and the number of medical device-related pressure injuries. Recruitment (n = 87) was slower than expected with less than 10% of screened potential patients available for enrolment. Fidelity to the process of care for each subgroup was variable with better adherence in the nasogastric tube arm compared to the endotracheal tube arm. This feasibility study has revealed concerns about the intervention designs and effectiveness as well as challenges for the adherence of the nursing staff to the protocol.
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.