ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Effect of all-in-one nursing model on ICU ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 study the effect of an all-in-one nursing model on ICU ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).
methodsA total of 100 ICU patients needing ventilator assistance who were admitted to our hospital from March 2018 to December 2019 were equally randomized into two groups by a lottery system, with 50 cases in each group. Patients in the control group received routine nursing, and patients in the experimental group received all-in-one nursing. The number of ICU VAP patients, time transferring from ICU to an ordinary ward, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation time, nursing efficiency, and the changes of blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation during nursing was compared between the two groups.
resultsRegarding the number of cases of VAP, the length of stay in the ICU, and the length of hospital stay, and the mechanical ventilation time, the experimental group was markedly shorter than that of the control group (P<0.05). With respect to the effective rates of nursing care, the experimental group (96%) was better than the control group (80%) (P<0.05). When considering the changes of hemodynamic indexes during the nursing process, the two groups exhibited no marked difference (P>0.05). After intervention, the control group was inferior in terms of the oxygen partial pressure and carbon dioxide partial pressure compared to the experimental group (P<0.05).
conclusionAll-in-one nursing can reduce the incidence of VAP in ICU patients, significantly shorten the length of ICU stay, hospital stay and mechanical ventilation time, thus improving overall nursing efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34150095PMC8205670W3176440646What 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.