Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32723731›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2020

Management of tracheostomies in the intensive care unit: a scoping review.

Kirsty A Whitmore, Shane C Townsend, Kevin B Laupland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Volume-outcome relationships for tracheostomies in Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Units: A registry-based retrospective study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kirsty A WhitmoreDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2787-0789
Shane C TownsendDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Kevin B LauplandDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia Kevin.Laupland@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-5354

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile there is an extensive body of literature surrounding the decision to insert, and methods for inserting, a tracheostomy, the optimal management of tracheostomies within the intensive care unit (ICU) from after insertion until ICU discharge is not well understood. The objective was to identify and map the key concepts relating to, and identify research priorities for, postinsertion management of adult patients with tracheostomies in the ICU.

designScoping review of the literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception to 3 October 2019. Additional sources were searched for published and unpublished literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies of any methodology that addressed the a priori key questions relating to tracheostomy management in the ICU. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in full by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Data were extracted for included studies, and results mapped along the prespecified research questions.

results6132 articles were screened, and 102 articles were included for detailed analysis. Protocolised weaning was found to be successful in liberating patients from the ventilator in several cohort studies. Observational studies showed that strategies that use T-pieces and high-flow oxygen delivery improve weaning success. Several lines of evidence, including one clinical trial, support early cuff deflation as a safe and effective strategy as it results in a reduced time to wean, shorter ICU stays and fewer complications. Early tracheostomy downsizing and/or switching to cuffless tubes was found to be of benefit in one study. A substantial body of evidence supports the use of speaking valves to facilitate communication. While this does not influence time to wean or incidence of complications, it is associated with a major benefit in patient satisfaction and experience. Use of care bundles and multidisciplinary team approaches have been associated with reduced complications and improved outcomes in several observational studies.

conclusionsThe limited body of evidence supports use of weaning protocols, early cuff deflation, use of speaking valves and multidisciplinary approaches. Clinical trials examining post-tracheostomy management strategies in ICUs are a priority.

Indexed as

AdultHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient Care BundlesPatient Care TeamRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory InsufficiencyTracheostomynot applicable

Identifiers

PMID32723731
PMCPMC7390235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.