Trial reportRespiratory care2023
Evaluation of a Closed Suction System With Integrated Tube-Scraping Technology.
Trial report in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Manuscript.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- How to Write an Effective Discussion.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Endotracheal Tube Cleaning Devices: A Means But Not a Solution.Respiratory care · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndotracheal tube (ETT) scraping or sweeping refers to mucus removal from an ETT that can increase airway resistance. The study objective was to evaluate the effect of ETT scraping on the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), duration of hospital stay, and occurrence of ventilator-associated events (VAEs).
methodsThis was a single-center, randomized clinical trial of adult subjects intubated between October 2019-October 2021. Subjects were randomly assigned to either ETT suctioning via a standard in-line suction catheter (control group) or ETT suctioning and scraping via a suction catheter with balloon-sweeping technology (experimental group). Airway suctioning was performed as clinically indicated, and the ETT was scraped every time a respiratory therapist suctioned the subject. The study outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful SBT, hospital length of stay, and VAE rate. Intent-to-treat statistical analysis was performed.
resultsOf 272 randomized subjects, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 52-73) y; 143 (53%) were males, and 154 (57%) had a primary diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. There were no significant differences between the groups in median duration (h) of mechanical ventilation (72 [37-187] vs 70.6 [37-148],
conclusionsETT suctioning plus scraping, compared to ETT suctioning alone, did not significantly improve the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful SBT, length of hospital stay, and VAEs. These study findings do not support the routine use of ETT scraping for mechanically ventilated 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.