ArticleJournal of medicine and life2024
Impact of various solutions on the oral health status of critically ill patients.
Article in Journal of medicine and life, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral care is a crucial challenge of nursing care in orally intubated patients. Oropharyngeal colonization with microorganisms is probably the first step in the pathogenesis of most bacterial pulmonary infections. This study aimed to investigate the effect of different oral care solutions on the oral health status of critically ill patients. We conducted a quasi-experimental study involving a convenience sample of 60 adult orally intubated patients, distributed equally into three groups: 20 patients received 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) solution as an oral rinse; 20 patients received 0.1% hexetidine (HEX) solution as an oral rinse; and a control group of 20 patients received routine hospital oral care with 0.9% normal saline (NS) solution. Oropharyngeal and tracheal cultures were obtained from patients within 24-48 h of admission, before the administration of topical oral antimicrobial solutions and then repeated on day 4 and day 7 after the oral solutions. The study revealed that CHX has a more powerful effect than HEX and NS in improving the oral mucosa and decreasing colonization of both the oropharynx and trachea. On day 7, the improvements were statistically significant in the CHX group and the HEX group (
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.