ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Tracheostomy between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Follow-Up Care on Tracheostomy Management Post-Hospital Discharge: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes, Quality of Life, and Long-Term Recovery.Tracheostomy (Warrenville, Ill.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWe compared decannulation-related factors between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy. SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a tracheostomy. The clinical factors were compared between the successful (decannulation within 3 months) and failed decannulation (decannulation over 3 months) groups in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.
resultsThe successful decannulation rates were 41.1% in COVID-19 and 45.1% in non-COVID-19 patients, with no significant differences in demographic and clinical factors between the two groups. In the non-COVID-19 patients, the failed decannulation group had a higher proportion of cerebrovascular and pulmonary diseases. Ventilator dependency or increased oxygen demand was the primary cause of decannulation failure in both groups, with no significant differences except for a higher prevalence of swallowing problems in the COVID-19 group (42.4% vs. 20.0%).
conclusionsThe predominant cause of decannulation failure was ventilator and oxygen demand in both the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. In the non-COVID-19 patients, underlying cerebrovascular diseases were considered to have a significant impact on the decannulation process. On the other hand, swallowing problems significantly influenced decannulation among the COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we should consider early and active respiratory and swallowing rehabilitation to facilitate successful decannulation in COVID-19 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.