ArticleIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
Intensive Care Nurses' Performance of Open versus Closed Endotracheal Suction on Critically Ill Patients in Ismailia City.
Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Round by Peers on Critical Thinking and Clinical Decision-Making in Nursing Students.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
- Effectiveness of Dual-System Endotracheal Suction on Cardiopulmonary Functions in Mechanically Ventilated Adult Patients at Ismailia City, Egypt: Nursing Practice.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
Background: Endotracheal Tube Suctioning (ETS), which involves either an open or closed suctioning system, is a crucial practice for mechanically ventilated patients. The nursing practice of airway suctioning is inevitable. This study was designed to compare the intensive care nurses' performance of open versus closed endotracheal suction on critically ill patients in Ismailia City. Materials and Methods: A non-participant structured observational study design was conducted on a convenient sample (N = 63) at intensive care units at a teaching hospital through March and August 2022 to evaluate how nurses practice different procedures in open suctioning compared with the closed suctioning system of Endotracheal Suction (ES) through a 32-item structured checklist. Additionally, authors compared their levels of knowledge in both suctioning systems. Results: Approximately 75% and 65% of the study participants had a satisfactory level of knowledge about the open system compared with the closed system, respectively. The total percentage of patients who achieved a satisfactory level of practice was 72% for the open-system group, compared with 56% for the closed-system group. Overall, there were significant differences between total nurses' performances in the open-system and closed-system systems. Independent sample t-tests revealed a statistically significant correlation between overall nurses' performance in both systems (t = 6.04, Conclusions: The findings revealed significant differences in nurses' performance between open and closed-system suctioning. The researchers recommend in-service-led training programs to improve nurses' performance, and other studies with larger sample sizes should be supported.
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.