ArticleNursing in critical care2025
Modified Versus Conventional Prone Position for COVID-19 Patients in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Comparative Study.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modified Versus Conventional Prone Position for COVID-19 Patients in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Comparative Study.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProne position has been reported to improve prognosis and reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients, but poor patient tolerance and complications remain an issue.
aimThis study aimed to compare the modified vs. conventional prone position on pressure injuries in COVID-19 patients in adult intensive care units (ICU). STUDY
designThis retrospective comparative study enrolled COVID-19-positive patients who were admitted to the emergency adult ICU of a tertiary general hospital between December 2022 and January 2023. All data were extracted from patient charts. The primary outcome was pressure injury. During the study period, pressure injuries were evaluated using the staging system of the International Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries in 2019.
resultsA total of 39 COVID-19-positive patients (16 females) were included, and 19 patients received the modified prone position. Compared to those with the conventional prone position, patients with the modified prone position had significantly lower occurrence of pressure injury (3 (25.0%) vs. 9 (75.0%), p = 0.044), eyelid oedema (2 (10.5%) vs. 9 (45.0%), p = 0.031) and facial oedema (5 (26.3%) vs. 13 (65%), p = 0.024) and significantly higher daily continuous prone position time (9.16 ± 3.01 vs. 6.50 ± 2.14, p = 0.003). The occurrence site and stage of pressure injury, transcutaneous blood oxygen saturation, airway adverse events and brachial plexus injury were comparable between the groups (all p > 0.05).
conclusionCompared to the conventional prone position, the modified prone position may significantly reduce the occurrence of pressure injuries and improve patient tolerance in COVID-19 patients in the adult ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These findings provide guidance for critical care nurses to implement prone positioning interventions.
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.