Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34133659›Full record

SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

Combination of toothbrushing and chlorhexidine compared with exclusive use of chlorhexidine to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Pedro Urquiza Jayme Silva, Luiz Renato Paranhos, Daniela Meneses-Santos, Cauane Blumenberg, Dhiancarlo Rocha Macedo, Sérgio Vitorino Cardoso

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pedro Urquiza Jayme SilvaPrograma de Pos-Graduacao em Odontologia, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-478X
Luiz Renato ParanhosArea de Odontologia Preventiva e Social, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7599-0120
Daniela Meneses-SantosPrograma de Residencia em Cirurgia e Traumatologia Buco-Maxilo-Facial, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8898-9508
Cauane BlumenbergPrograma de Pos-Graduacao em Epidemiologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4580-3849
Dhiancarlo Rocha MacedoHospital Odontologico, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-5187
Sérgio Vitorino CardosoArea de Patologia, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1809-0617
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia · BRUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature, PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Scopus, LIVIVO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenThesis, and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations databases were used. Only randomized controlled trials without restrictions on the year or language of publication were included. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model estimated the combined relative risk (RR). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Initially, 2,337 studies were identified, of which 4 were considered in the systematic review and 3 in the meta-analysis (total sample: 796 patients). The studies were published between 2009 and 2017. All eligible studies had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the risk of VAP was 24% lower in patients receiving chlorhexidine combined with toothbrushing than in those receiving chlorhexidine alone (RR: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.06), with moderate certainty of evidence and without statistical significance. In conclusion, considering the limitations of this study, a standard protocol for the prevention of VAP is not yet recommended. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw strong conclusions. However, considering that toothbrushing is a simple intervention, it should be a common practice in mechanically ventilated patients, especially among patients with coronavirus disease.

Indexed as

Pneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedChlorhexidineHumansIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialToothbrushingChlorhexidine

Identifiers

PMID34133659
PMCPMC8158674
OpenAlexW3171605288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.