ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of mortality due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in public and private intensive care units in Brazil: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.
methodsThis was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization.
resultsBetween May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001].
conclusionThis survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.
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.