Trial reportIrish journal of medical science2025
Comparison of programmed sedation care with conventional care in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.
Trial report in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of planned sedation therapy in comparison to standard care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF).
methodThe research included a total of sixty individuals who underwent mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF). Utilizing the random number table method, these patients were randomized at random to either the planned sedation care group (Group PSC) or the conventional care group (Group C). The objective was to assess and contrast the impact of treatment on the two groups. Significantly shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, sedative use, ICU therapy, length of stay, incidence of delirium, and adverse events were observed in Group PSC compared with Group C (P < 0.05). A higher 1-month survival rate following mechanical ventilation, a higher post-intervention forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) as a percentage of the expected value, a higher post-intervention forced vital capacity (FVC), and a higher patient family care satisfaction rate were observed in Group PSC compared to Group C (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe scheduled administration of sedative therapy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF) offers significant, reliable, and effective therapeutic benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39400862What 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.