ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Patients' experiences of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units in low- and lower-middle-income countries: protocol of a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) is a stressful experience for patients. However, these experiences have not been systematically explored in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This systematic review (SR) aims to explore the patients' experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMICs and the factors influencing their experiences.
methodsThe PICO framework will be used to operationalize the review question into key concepts: population (mechanically ventilated adult patients in ICUs), phenomenon of interest (experiences) and context (LLMICs). PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched since database inception. Citation, reference list and PubMed-related article searching of included studies will be done to ensure literature saturation. Empirical peer-reviewed literature exploring adult patients' (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMIC will be included. All study designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) will be included. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and critical appraisal. The mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and Popay's narrative synthesis will be used for critical appraisal and data synthesis, respectively. DISCUSSION: This SR aims to bridge a gap in knowledge as previous evidence synthesis has described this phenomenon in developed countries. The review design, with the inclusion of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, intends to provide a rich and in-depth exploration of the issue. The findings will be presented as themes, subthemes and their explanatory narratives. The gaps in available literature will be identified, and implications of SR findings on policy, practice and future research will be presented. The strength of this SR lies in its systematic, comprehensive, transparent, robust and explicit methodology of identifying, collating, assessing and synthesizing available evidence. By prior registration and reporting of this SR protocol, we aim to ensure transparency and accountability and minimize bias. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024507187.
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.