Trial reportAmerican journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses2020
Intubation Setting, Aspiration, and Ventilator-Associated Conditions.
Trial report in American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Youtube Videos for Artificial Airway Suctioning Training of Nurses: A Content Analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients experience endotracheal intubation in various settings with wide-ranging risks for postintubation complications such as aspiration and ventilator-associated conditions.
objectivesTo evaluate associations between intubation setting, presence of aspiration biomarkers, and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis study is a subanalysis of data from the NO-ASPIRATE single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Data were prospectively collected for 513 adult patients intubated within 24 hours of enrollment. Patients with documented aspiration events at intubation were excluded. In the NO-ASPIRATE trial, intervention patients received enhanced oropharyngeal suctioning every 4 hours and control patients received sham suctioning. Tracheal specimens for α-amylase and pepsin tests were collected upon enrollment. Primary outcomes were ventilator hours, lengths of stay, and rates of ventilator-associated conditions.
resultsOf the baseline tracheal specimens, 76.4% were positive for α-amylase and 33.1% were positive for pepsin. Proportions of positive tracheal α-amylase and pepsin tests did not differ significantly between intubation locations (study hospital, transfer from other hospital, or field intubation). No differences were found for ventilator hours or lengths of stay. Patients intubated at another hospital and transferred had significantly higher ventilator-associated condition rates than did those intubated at the study hospital (P = .02). Ventilator-associated condition rates did not differ significantly between patients intubated in the field and patients in other groups.
conclusionsHigher ventilator-associated condition rates associated with interhospital transfer may be related to movement from bed, vehicle loading and unloading, and transport vehicle vibrations. Airway assessment and care may also be suboptimal in the transport environment.
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.