ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2023
Effect of Oral Care with Povidone-Iodine in the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for Care and weaning procedures in tracheostomized ICU patients after invasive mechanical ventilation: a joint statement by the Intensive Care Physiotherapy Society (SKR) and the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF).Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Article
- Potential effect of topical antibiotics administration in the oral cavity on the reduced number of bacteria entering the lower respiratory tract after oral cancer surgery.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Oral care medications for the prevention and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections affecting one-third of patients with mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to synthesize available evidence regarding the effect of treatment with povidone-iodine (PI) among adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for the prevention of VAP. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, from the earliest records until January 1, 2023. STATA software v14 was used for statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests. A P-value less than 0.1 was considered statistically significant for publication bias value. Results: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed rhat PI decreased VAP compared to the placebo group, but it was not statistically significant (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.25 to 1.47, Z=1.10, P=0.27, I2:71.5%). One study compared the effect of PI with chlorhexidine on the rate of VAP, the difference between which was not statistically significant (RR: 1.50, 95%CI: 0.46 to 4.87, Z=0.67, P=0.50, I2:0). Two studies demonstrated that the use of PI intervention compared to placebo decreased the average length of stay in ICU; however, it was not statistically significant (WMD: -0.35, 95%CI:-3.90 to 3.20, Z=0.19, P=0.85, I2:0). Also, three studies showed that using PI had almost no effect on mortality rate compared to placebo (RR: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.66 to 1.53, Z=0.8, P=0.27, I2:29.0%). Conclusion: More rigorously designed randomized clinical trials and further evidence are required to make a better decision/comparison about using PI as a suitable choice for preventing VAP among adult patients admitted to the ICU.
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.