ReviewHuman factors2020
Proning Patients With COVID-19: A Review of Equipment and Methods.
Review in Human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised crossover trial of staff time with proned patients in the ICU using the 'BathMat'.Trials · 2025Article
- [Incidence of pressure ulcers due to prone position in patients admitted to the ICU for Covid-19].Enfermeria intensiva · 2023Article
- Article
- Optimizing nursing workload in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: Planning prone positioning.Trends in anaesthesia & critical care · 2022Article
- Multidisciplinary team approach in critically ill COVID-19 patients reduced pronation-related complications rate: A retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Use of the prone position in pregnant women with COVID-19 or other health conditions.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2021Review
- Incidence of pressure ulcers due to prone position in patients admitted to the ICU for Covid-19.Enfermeria intensivaObservational
- Nurse Perspectives on Prone Positioning for ARDS Patient in the ICU: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study of Facilitator and Barrier.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and critically evaluate methods for proning patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU).
backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Proning improves blood oxygenation and survival rates in these patients but is not commonly performed due to the difficulty of the procedure.
methodsAn academic literature review, internet video search, and consultation with five subject-matter experts was performed to identify known methods for proning. Evaluation of each method considered the number of healthcare workers required, physical stresses on staff, risk of adverse events to patients, and equipment cost and availability.
resultsSeveral variations of manual techniques and-lift assisted techniques were identified in addition to a specialized proning bed. Manual methods require more healthcare workers, higher physical stresses, and greater risk of adverse events than lift-assisted methods or the proning bed.
conclusionBoth the specialized proning bed and a lift-assisted method using straps largely eliminated manual forces required for proning while allowing for a controlled lowering and positioning of the patient. APPLICATION: This review will guide practitioners to the most suitable methods for proning patients in the ICU.
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.