ArticleCritical care research and practice2023
Application of a New Type of Protective Sputum Suction Device in Clinic against Cross-Infection between Medical Staff and Patients.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical application of a new type of protective sputum suction device (PSSD) in patients with tracheotomy or tracheal intubation and to evaluate the protective effect of PSSD against cross-infection between medical staffs and patients. Methods: A novel PSSD was designed which can assist closed sputum suction operation without disconnecting the ventilator. 32 patients with tracheotomy were included to study the protective effect and safety of this device. Patients' vital signs including heart rate, respiratory rate, mean arterial pressure, and blood oxygen saturation were recorded to compare the influence of open suction and closed suction (performed with this novel device). To verify the antisplash effect of this device on airway secretions, bacterial samples were collected from the hands of the suction operators and the environment near the endotracheal tube orifice before and after the two suction processes. In addition, the satisfaction of the two suction methods was compared through the questionnaire of suction staff. Finally, with the assistance of this device, an attempt was made to complete the bronchoscopy without weaning of ventilator. Results: Compared with open sputum suction, closed sputum suction has a smaller decrease in patients' blood oxygen saturation ( Conclusion: This closed sputum suction device has little effect on the oxygen saturation of patients but has excellent protective effects for medical staff against cross-infection. It has a unique advantage that can assist in completing the fiberoptic bronchoscopy with continuous ventilator-assisted breathing.
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.