ArticleBMC nursing2025
The effect of prone positioning on ventilator parameters, blood gas levels, and ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05760716 (The Effect of Prone Position Use on Ventilator Mode, Blood Gas and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Intensive Care Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
The Effect of Prone Position Use on Ventilator Mode, Blood Gas and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Intensive Care Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was planned to compare the prone position and non-prone position groups and to evaluate arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) status before, during, and after patients were brought back to the non-prone position.
designThis study is a randomized controlled trial with a parallel-group design and a 1:1 allocation ratio. A block randomisation method was used to ensure balanced allocation between two groups.
settingThe research was conducted in the 14-bed and 26-bed general ICUs of two private hospitals on the European side of Istanbul.
participantsThe 94 eligible participants were randomly divided into two groups. 52 participants were assigned to the prone position group, while 42 participants were assigned to the non-prone position group, which served as the control group. In the end, 40 participants were in each group.
interventionThe intervention involved placing patients in the prone position and monitoring their arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values, and VAP status at multiple stages: before, during, and after returning them to the non-prone position. Each patient was followed for a minimum of 5 days.
resultsThe majority of the participants were male (51.2%) and aged 45-64 (48.8%). The comparison of experimental and control groups indicated statistically significant difference in saturation, FiO₂, inspiratory-expiratory tidal volume, and blood gas levels of the patients in the treatment group (p = 0.001; p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe change in the experimental group was greater than in the control group. In conclusion, the mechanical ventilator parameters and blood gas levels of the patients in the treatment group were better than those of the patients in the control group. It is recommended as an effective practice in patients receiving prone position mechanical ventilation (MV). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRATION DATE: NCT05760716/ March 6, 2023 (This trial was registered retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration Number: NCT05760716) after its completion due to demanded revisions. The integrity of the data and adherence to the study protocol were ensured throughout. The trial adhered to ethical standards (ethics committee approval, informed consent) even if it was not registered prospectively).
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.