Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34598718›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2021

Oral health care for the critically ill: a narrative review.

Lewis Winning, Fionnuala T Lundy, Bronagh Blackwood, Daniel F McAuley, Ikhlas El Karim

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multidimensional analysis of postoperative nursing challenges in oral cancer surgery: a retrospective study of 245 patients and proposal of the PROTECT mode.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lewis WinningDublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Fionnuala T LundyCentre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, The Wellcome-Wolfson Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK.
Bronagh BlackwoodCentre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, The Wellcome-Wolfson Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK.
Daniel F McAuleyCentre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, The Wellcome-Wolfson Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK.
Ikhlas El KarimCentre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, The Wellcome-Wolfson Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland, UK. i.elkarim@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5314-7378
Queen's University Belfast · GBTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe link between oral bacteria and respiratory infections is well documented. Dental plaque has the potential to be colonized by respiratory pathogens and this, together with microaspiration of oral bacteria, can lead to pneumonia particularly in the elderly and critically ill. The provision of adequate oral care is therefore essential for the maintenance of good oral health and the prevention of respiratory complications. MAIN BODY: Numerous oral care practices are utilised for intubated patients, with a clear lack of consensus on the best approach for oral care. This narrative review aims to explore the oral-lung connection and discuss in detail current oral care practices to identify shortcomings and offer suggestions for future research. The importance of adequate oral care has been recognised in guideline interventions for the prevention of pneumonia, but practices differ and controversy exists particularly regarding the use of chlorhexidine. The oral health assessment is also an important but often overlooked element of oral care that needs to be considered. Oral care plans should ideally be implemented on the basis of an individual oral health assessment. An oral health assessment prior to provision of oral care should identify patient needs and facilitate targeted oral care interventions.

conclusionOral health is an important consideration in the management of the critically ill. Studies have suggested benefit in the reduction of respiratory complication such as Ventilator Associated Pneumonia associated with effective oral health care practices. However, at present there is no consensus as to the best way of providing optimal oral health care in the critically ill. Further research is needed to standardise oral health assessment and care practices to enable development of evidenced based personalised oral care for the critically ill.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDental CareAgedHumansOral HealthChlorhexidineOral bacteriaOral healthPneumoniaVAP

Identifiers

PMID34598718
PMCPMC8485109
OpenAlexW3202320867

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.