ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2024
[Suctioning in intubated and tracheotomized patients : A narrative review].
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2024. 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, 2 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndotracheal suctioning in intubated or tracheotomized critically ill patients is a daily task of various professional groups in intensive and emergency medicine; however, a German language summary of current evidence is lacking.
objectiveThe aim is to develop a narrative overview of current evidence on endotracheal suctioning of intubated or tracheotomized patients in the clinical setting. MATERIAL AND
methodsA literature search was conducted in the databases Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Livivo, and Medline via PubMed by nurses with an academic degree. In addition, a hand search and applying the snowball principle were performed. Following a successful critical appraisal, all English and German language publications addressing endotracheal suctioning in the context of hospital care were included.
resultsA total of 23 full texts were included. After developing 6 main topics on endotracheal suction 19 articles were considered in the reporting. The results showed, among others, that routine deep suctioning once per shift is contraindicated and that the catheter should be advanced no more than 0.5-1 cm beyond the distal end of the tube or tracheal cannula. Closed suction catheters offer advantages, especially for staff protection, although studies are heterogeneous. Further training of staff is obligatory.
conclusionFew conclusive studies on endotracheal suction could be found; however, with the available evidence initial conclusions can be drawn which should be considered in, for example, internal standard operating procedures. Further research is needed.
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.