ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2022
Adverse events in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of environmental microbial communities and resistomes in intensive care units of a tertiary hospital in northwest China.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of the conceive-design-implement-operate model and lecture-based learning in teaching the "healthcare-associated infections" course.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of virtual simulation content for prevention of unplanned extubation in intensive care.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Article
- New Insights into Cutaneous Asepsis: Synergism between Pfaffia and Rosemary Extracts.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical and economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: A prospective cohort study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the prevalence of adverse events and the critically ill patient's need for care in an intensive care unit.
methodThis is a cross-sectional study, carried out from January to March 2020. The adverse events investigated were pressure injury, accidental orotracheal extubation, fall, loss of central venous access, and healthcare-associated infection. The number of hours required for patient care was measured by the Nursing Activities Score. The categorical independent variables were described by absolute and relative frequencies, and the continuous ones, by central tendency. The magnitude measure was the odds ratio and a confidence interval of 95% was considered.
resultsof the 88 patients evaluated, 52.3% had adverse events, which were associated with a greater need for care, severity, and longer hospital stay. The mean Nursing Activities Score was 51.01% (12 h 24 min), with a deficit of 20% to 30% of nursing staff in the unit being identified.
conclusionThe prevalence of adverse events in the unit is high and the shortage of nursing staff in the unit revealed the need for adequate staffing to reduce the damage caused by the care provided to critically ill patients.
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.