ArticleHealth science reports2023
Respiratory support of adults in the emergency department: A protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. 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.
- Respiratory support of adults in the emergency department: A protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study.Health science reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Providing respiratory support (RS) to patients may improve their oxygenation and ventilation, reducing the work of breathing. Emergency department (ED) patients often need RS; COVID-19 has heightened this need. Patients receiving RS may need escalation of their treatment; hence, studies considering the prevalence of escalation are warranted. Method: This is a protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study (PPS). Researchers will collect data over 2 days. All participants are adult ED patients needing RS. The setting is four EDs in New Zealand. The primary research question asks, "Which patients receiving RS require escalation of therapy in the ED?" For example, transitioning from conventional oxygen therapy (COT) to intubation is deemed an escalation of therapy. A sample size of 80 participants is required to resolve the primary research question. Secondary research questions: (1) Which patients receive nasal high flow (NHF) in the ED? (2) How is NHF therapy delivered in the ED? (3) What are the effects of NHF therapy on physiological and patient-centered outcomes? Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) will be used for data organization. Data will be imported for analysis from REDCap to IBM SPSS software (Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0). Data reporting on the primary outcome shall be considered by analysis of variance, regression modeling, and determination of two treatment effects: Odds Ratio and Number Needed to Treat. Statistical significance for inferential statistics shall use a two-sided Conclusion: This novel PPS may reduce the evidence and clinical practice gap on RS delivery and ED patient outcomes, as evidenced by the emergence of COVID-19.
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.