ArticlePloS one2023
Excellence of the closed intensive care unit system in critically ill surgical patients.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
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
backgroundDespite reports that the closed intensive care unit (ICU) system improves clinical outcomes, it has not been widely applied for various reasons. This study aimed to propose a better ICU system for critically ill patients by comparing the experience of open surgical ICU (OSICU) and closed surgical ICU (CSICU) systems in the same institution. METHODS AND
findingsOur institution converted the ICU system from "open" to "closed" in February 2020, and enrolled patients were classified into the OSICU and CSICU groups at that time from March 2019 to February 2022. A total of 751 patients were categorized into the OSICU (n = 191) and CSICU (n = 560) groups. The mean age of the patients was 67 years in the OSICU group and 72 years in the CSICU group (p < 0.05). The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score was 21.8 ± 7.65 in the CSICU group, which was higher than the score 17.4 ± 7.97 in the OSICU group (p < 0.05). The sequential organ failure assessment scores were 2.0 ± 2.29 in the OSICU group and 4.1 ± 3.06 in the CSICU group (p < 0.05). After correction for bias by logistic regression analysis for all-cause mortality, the odds ratio in the CSICU group was 0.089 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.014-0.568, p < 0.05).
conclusionsDespite considering the various factors of increased patient severity, a CSICU system is more beneficial for critically ill patients. Therefore, we propose that the CSICU system be applied worldwide.
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.