ArticleCritical care explorations2022
Patient's Perspective of Awake Proning: A Cross-Sectional Interview-Based Survey From COVID-19-Recovered Patients.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Awake prone positioning effectiveness in moderate to severe COVID-19 a randomized controlled trial.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- The physiological effect of prone positioning and lateral decubitus in non-intubated patients with severe COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Barriers and facilitators of adherence to awake prone positioning: a qualitative study using the COM-B model.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Prone position effect in intensive care patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the patients who underwent prone positioning during their COVID-19 illness in the hospital.
designCross-sectional study.
settingAga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
participantsCOVID-19-recovered patients.
interventionsNone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Knowledge was assessed by five questions with a dichotomous response (yes/no). An yes response was awarded 1 score. Since there were five questions, five would be the highest score. Patients' perceptions of the therapy were assessed by four questions, each scored on a Likert scale of 5 (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree). As it had four questions, the maximum score achieved could therefore be 20. Proning practices were assessed using seven questions: four were used to calculate practice scores, whereas three were open-ended regarding the patient's experience. Each question carries a different score, and the maximum score was 8.
resultsThe study included 98 patients. The mean age of the patients was 57 years (sd, 12.2 yr). Majority of the patients were males (70.4%). 69.1% of males and 76.6% of females fell in the poor knowledge group. The poor knowledge cohort had an educational level of 48% in high school, 45.5% in graduates, and 6% in postgraduates. Compared with 56.5% of males, 73% of females preferred prone positioning. Sixty percent of those with a high school education viewed prone positioning favorably, whereas 46% of those with graduate and postgraduate did. Seventy-nine percent of males and 63% of females scored positively on the practice questionnaire. Eighty percent of graduates and postgraduates preferred proning practices to 67% of participants with high school education levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study population had a little understanding of awake proning, found it unpleasant, and practiced for a shorter period than advised. Despite the overall negative attitude toward the position, our patients highly recommend this position to future 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.