Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417310›Full record

ArticleChronic respiratory disease

Patients experience regarding home mechanical ventilation in an outpatient setting.

Carla Ribeiro, Cristina Jácome, Pedro Oliveira, Sara Conde, Wolfram Windisch, Rui Nunes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chronic respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Quality of life in patients with chronic respiratory failure on home mechanical ventilation.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Carla RibeiroPulmonology Department, 59043Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8270-3687
Cristina JácomeCINTESIS@RISE, MEDCIDS, 26705Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Pedro OliveiraISPUP-EPI Unit, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, 89239Universidade do Porto, Portugal.
Sara CondePulmonology Department, 59043Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Wolfram WindischFaculty of Health/School of Medicine, Department of Pneumology, Cologne Merheim Hospital, Kliniken der Stadt Köln gGmbH, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Rui NunesFaculty of Medicine, 26705University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient's experience of treatment is a cornerstone of high-quality healthcare, along with clinical safety and effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the patients' perspectives regarding home mechanical ventilation (HMV) follow up in an outpatient setting and ascertain differences between patients that started HMV in the outpatient setting compared to other settings.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted with patients with chronic respiratory failure under HMV in the Outpatient Ventilation Clinic. Patients filled in a patient experience questionnaire and the S3-NIV questionnaire.

resultsThe study included 235 patients (127, 54% male), median 70 [25-75 percentiles 64-76] years) and about half were adapted to HMV in the outpatient setting (117, 49.8%). Patients had a daily ventilator usage of 8.0 [6.0-10.0] hours and have been on ventilator for a median of 35.0 [12.0-66.0] months. Patients reported an overall good experience regarding education at initiation (209 [88.9%] considered the information given was enough), short time to adaptation [104 (44.3%) felt adapted after some hours], with perceived benefits (171 [72.8%] reported less shortness of breath, 158 (67.2%) improved quality of life and 150 (63.8%) less tiredness). Benefits overcame the treatment side-effects (158 [67.2%] reported mucosal dryness, 109 (46.4%) mask sores and 96 (40.9%) leaks). There was no difference in terms of reported health gains, side effects or time to adaptation between adaptation settings, but patients starting HMV in the outpatient setting reported better communication and education at adaptation.

conclusionsOutpatient setting was perceived as a positive experience, both in HMV initiation and follow up, with good patient-physician communication leading to significant health reported gains, improvement of health status and well-being and good treatment adherence.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesRespiration, ArtificialCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleOutpatientsQuality of Lifehospital outpatient clinicNoninvasive ventilationoutpatient settingpatient experiencepatient reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36417310
PMCPMC9706049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.