Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34667468›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of medicine & medical sciences

Clinical Practice and Barriers of Ventilatory Support Management in COVID-19 Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Survey of Respiratory Therapists.

Jaber S Alqahtani, Yousef S Aldabayan, Mohammed D AlAhmari, Saad M AlRabeeah, Abdulelah M Aldhahir, Saeed M Alghamdi, Tope Oyelade, Malik Althobiani, Ahmed M Alrajeh

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Clinical Management of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors.

Jaber S AlqahtaniRespiratory Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Yousef S AldabayanRespiratory Care Department, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed D AlAhmariDepartment of Respiratory Care, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Saad M AlRabeeahDepartment of Respiratory Care, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulelah M AldhahirRespiratory Care Department, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Saeed M AlghamdiDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Tope OyeladeDivision of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Malik AlthobianiDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed M AlrajehRespiratory Care Department, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study was conducted to determine the clinical practice and barriers of ventilatory support management in COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia among respiratory therapists.

methodsA validated questionnaire comprising three parts was distributed to all critical care respiratory therapists registered with the Saudi Society for Respiratory Care through the official social networks.

resultsA total of 74 respiratory therapists completed the survey. The mean (±standard deviation) of intensive care unit beds was 67 ± 79. Clinical presentation (54%) and arterial blood gas (38%) were the two main diagnostic tools used to initiate ventilatory support. While protocols for the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; 81%) were widely available, participants had limited availability of protocols for the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV; 34%) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC; 34%). In mild cases of COVID-19, most respondents used HFNC (57%), while IMV was mostly used in moderate (43%) and severe (93%) cases. Regular ventilator check was mostly done every 4 h (57%). BiPAP (47.3%) and full-face masks (45.9%) were the most used mode and interface, respectively, while pressure-regulated volume control (55.4%) and pressure control (27%) were the most used mechanical ventilation modes for COVID-19 patients. In terms of use of proning, 62% used it on IMV, while 26% reported using awake proning. Staff shortage (51.4%), personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage (51.4%), increased workload (45.9%), inadequate training (43.2%) and lack of available protocols and policies (37.8%) were the main barriers.

conclusionVentilatory support management of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia was inconsistent with the global practice, lacked uniformity, and there was limited use of standard protocols/treatment guidelines. Shortage of staff and PPE, increased workload and insufficient training were the most prevalent barriers.

Indexed as

COVID-19intensive care unitsmechanical ventilationnoninvasive ventilationrespiratorySaudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID34667468
PMCPMC8473999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.