ArticleCureus2025
The Influence of Oral Health on Comprehensive Health Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe main purpose of the study was to find out how the oral health of critically ill patients affected the chances of bad outcomes such as longer hospital stays and death while taking into account possible confounders such as how often the critically ill patients used chlorhexidine mouthwash each week and their sequential organ failure assessment scores.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study on 4,999 critically ill patients admitted to the King Hussein Medical Centre in Amman, Jordan, from January 2018 to May 2022. The patients were adults and the elderly, with a minimum of three consecutive days of admission. The study encompassed both mechanically ventilated and non-ventilated patients. We divided the cohort into two groups, Group I, based on favorable adverse outcomes, and Group II, based on unfavorable adverse outcomes. We examined the weekly administration of chlorhexidine mouthwash during critical care admissions as the principal variable. We conducted multiple logistic regression analyses to evaluate the correlation between weekly mouthwash usage and the likelihood of poorer outcomes while accounting for oral health conditions and the risk of critical illness.
resultsA retrospective study of 4,999 critically ill patients revealed that 2,370 patients (47.41%) achieved improved composite outcomes of interest (cOI), while 2,629 patients (52.26%) fell into the inferior cOI group. The overall mortality rate in the lower socioeconomic category was 1,920 patients (73%), compared to 709 patients (27%) in the survival rate. A study using multiple logistic regression showed a strong link between critically ill patients' oral health statuses (OHS), how often they used mouthwash each week (WMW), and their sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores. The regression association for OHS relative to poorer cOI was positive, indicating a higher risk for poorer OHS compared to better OHS. The multivariate logistic regression model showed a predictive variability range of 69.5%-92.7%, with sensitivity indices of 98.6% for specificity, 96.7% for sensitivity, and 97.6% for accuracy.
conclusionThe study found a significant association between poor OHS and adverse outcomes. Other factors in critically ill patients, such as the weekly application of chlorohexidine gluconate mouthwash and SOFA, significantly influenced this independent variable, which had a high propensity risk of 180.965. The optimal threshold for a weekly chlorhexidine mouthwash application was 15.5 times per week.
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.