Observational studyPloS one2022
Effect of intensive care provided by nurse practitioners for postoperative patients: A retrospective observational before-and-after study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Nurse Practitioners' Peri-Operative Roles and Their Outcomes: A Prospective Observational Study in Surgical Care.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Observational
- Sedation practices and associated clinical outcomes among adult ICU patients managed by advanced practice providers versus resident physicians.Journal of critical care · 2026Article
- Intensive and critical care nurses' compliance, barriers, and challenges with ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nurse practitioners are increasingly now members of intensive care teams in Japan, but no data exist about their effect on the outcomes for critically ill patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of postoperative patients on mechanical ventilators before and after the participation of nurse practitioners in intensive care teams. We retrospectively identified 387 patients who underwent postoperative mechanical ventilation at a University Hospital in Japan, using data from medical records from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2017. We extracted data and compared patients' length of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital, mechanical ventilation days, postoperative rehabilitation start date, rehabilitation prescription, intensive care unit and hospital mortality, and intensive care unit readmission. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the factors affecting length of stay in the intensive care unit. Patients who received care from nurse practitioners and physicians had significantly shorter stays in intensive care (4.8 ± 4.8 days versus 6.7 ± 10.3 days, p < 0.021). Mechanical ventilation days, total length of hospital stay, rehabilitation prescription, mortality in intensive care and hospital, and readmission to intensive care were all similar to those who received care only from physicians. The multiple regression analysis suggests that participation of nurse practitioners in intensive care reduced the length of stay in the unit by 2.6 days (p = 0.003). These findings could help to increase use of non-physician healthcare providers in intensive care. Our results demonstrated that it is both effective and safe for nurse practitioners to participate in intensive care teams that provide care for postoperative patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
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.