ArticleCoDAS2023
Content validation of the decannulation protocol for adult tracheostomized patients.
Article in CoDAS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePerform content validation of a decannulation protocol for tracheostomized adult patients.
methodsTo validate the content of the protocol developed by speech therapists, the Delphi technique was used. The 11 items of the protocol were judged by experts through rounds via e-mail and were classified as adequate, partially adequate or inadequate, in addition to providing comments and suggestions on each item. 30 speech therapists, 30 respiratory physiotherapists and 30 physicians responsible for the tracheostomy and decannulation procedure were invited. The percentage of agreement adopted was ≥ 80% and the process was interrupted when this percentage was obtained in all items.
resultsAt the end of the process, 24 professionals participated in the third round, being 46% speech therapists, 29% physiotherapists and 25% physicians. After the experts' suggestions and comments, two items were kept as they were in the initial protocol, seven were reformulated, six were included and two were excluded. The final version of the protocol included: identification, absence of abundant secretions, characteristics of the secretion, effective cough, ability to remove secretions, tolerate the deflated cuff, aptitude in the decannulation process, level of consciousness, change of cannula to a smaller caliber, absence of current/active infection, spontaneous and effective swallowing of saliva, use of a speech valve, aptitude for occlusion of the cannula, assessment of aptitude for decannulation and objective examinations.
conclusionThrough the Delphi Technique, the content of the instrument was validated, with substantial changes occurring. The next stage of instrument validation is obtaining evidence of validity in relation to the internal structure.
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.