ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2023
Closed Endotracheal Suction Systems for COVID-19: Rapid Review.
Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06617156 (Comparison of Different Ventilator Measurement Methods of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index With Traditional Methods For Prediction Successful Extubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Different Ventilator Measurement Methods of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index With Traditional Methods For Prediction Successful Extubation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Nursing Practice of Airway Care Interventions and Prone Positioning in ICU Patients with COVID-19-A Dutch National Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Open Versus Closed Suctioning in Invasively Ventilated Critically Ill Patients for Sustainability of ICU Care: A Life-Cycle Assessment Comparison.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Dual-System Endotracheal Suction on Cardiopulmonary Functions in Mechanically Ventilated Adult Patients at Ismailia City, Egypt: Nursing Practice.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
backgroundThe increase in admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and the morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection pose a challenge to the analysis of evidence of health interventions carried out in ICUs. One of the most common interventions in patients infected with the virus and admitted to ICUs is endotracheal aspiration. Endotracheal suctioning has also been considered one of the most contaminating interventions.
objectiveThis review aims to analyze the benefits and risks of endotracheal suctioning using closed suction systems (CSS) in COVID-19 patients.
methodsA rapid review was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, and IBECS. The data search included articles in English and Spanish, published between 2010 and 2020, concerning adult patients, and using the key words "endotracheal," "suction," and "closed system."
resultsA total of 15 articles were included. The benefits and risks were divided into 3 categories: patient, care, and organization. Relating to the patient, we found differences in cardiorespiratory variables and changes in the ventilator, for example, improvement in patients with elevated positive and end-expiratory pressure due to maladaptation and alveolar collapse. Relating to care, we found a shorter suctioning time, by up to 1 minute. Relating to organization, we found fewer microorganisms on staff gloves. Other conflicting results between studies were related to ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacterial colonization, or mortality.
conclusionsAside from the need for quality research comparing open suction systems and CSS as used to treat COVID-19 patients, closed endotracheal suctioning has benefits in terms of shorter stay in the ICU and reduced environmental contamination, preventing ventilator disconnection from the patient, reducing the suctioning time-though it does produce the greatest number of mucosal occlusions-and preventing interpatient and patient-staff environmental contamination. New evidence in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is required in order to compare results and establish new guidelines.
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.