ArticleBMC nursing2025
Effect of ventilator care bundle for pediatric nurses on occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among children.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open versus Closed Suctioning Among Mechanically Ventilated Pediatric Patients: A Randomised Control Trial - Authors' Reply-1.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Knowledge and Practices of Intensive Care Unit Nurses Related to Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Cross-Sectional Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
- 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
backgroundIn pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most prevalent infections linked to healthcare. VAP affects 10% of children on mechanical ventilation (MV) and is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The study aimed to evaluate the effect of the ventilator care bundle (VCB) on the occurrence of VAP among pediatric patients.
methodA quasi-experimental design was conducted at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital (CUSPH), including all children who had mechanical ventilation within 24 h. VAP rates were evaluated before and after the implementation of a comprehensive VCB, which included head-of-bed elevation to 30-45°, hand hygiene reinforcement, sterile suctioning and handling of respiratory equipment, daily evaluation of extubation readiness, peptic ulcer prophylaxis, and deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. A convenience sample of 30 nurses and a purposive sample of 60 ventilated children in the PICU participated in the study. Data collection was performed using (1) structured interview sheets, (2) the Nurses' Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (pre/post-test), (3) the Ventilator Bundle Checklist, and (4) the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Scale (CPIS).
resultsThere was a significant increase in nurses' level of knowledge before and after the implementation of the VCB (X² = 21.46, p ≤ 0.01). There was a statistically significant difference between the total mean scores of nurses' practices in the first and second checklist readings (p < 0.01). Additionally, there were statistically significant differences between children in the study and control groups regarding the clinical pulmonary infection score (p < 0.01). The total mean score on the CPIS was significantly different between the study group and the control group (t = - 3.692, p = 0.001).
conclusionThe study concluded that children who were cared for by nurses receiving VCB sessions were less likely to experience VAP compared to those in the control group. RECOMMENDATION: Educational programs and in-service training courses for pediatric nurses to improve the quality of ventilator care for children and reduce the occurrence of VAP are essential.
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.