Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40878347›Full record

ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2025

Assessment of adverse events associated with medical devices among respiratory disorder patients at a tertiary care hospital.

Sasikasri Veeramani, Sri Ram Murugesh, Girish A M, Shilpa Palaksha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Authors' response.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sasikasri VeeramaniDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Sri Ram MurugeshDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Girish A MDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Shilpa PalakshaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & objectives Medical devices (MDs) play a vital role in delivering healthcare to critically ill individuals, which sometimes may also lead to adverse events ranging from serious to non-serious. So, this study was undertaken to assess the pattern of adverse events associated with MDs among individuals with respiratory disorder and to determine the predictors associated with MD related adverse events. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out among individuals with respiratory disorders admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital between August 2022 and July 2023. Individuals were monitored for MD-related adverse events (MDAEs) daily through interviews, case-sheet reviews, and interaction with healthcare professionals. The reported MDAEs were assessed for causality, severity, and device disposition based on the Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI). The MDAEs were assessed, categorised, and presented based on MDs, device risk classification, and type of events. The predictors were calculated at 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) using Chi-square tests. Results A total of 152 MDAEs were reported among 90 individuals; the majority were males [60 (66.7%)], and elderly between the ages of 61-70 yr experienced the majority of MDAEs [20 (22.2%)]. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was higher among mechanical ventilator users [59 (38.8%)] with non-implantable devices [114 (75%)]. Regarding device risk classification [106 (69.7%)], category C was frequently reported. The causality assessment revealed that the majority of events were categorized as 'probable' [84 (55.2%)]. Subsequently, the severity of the events was classified based on criteria such as death, life-threatening conditions, disability, hospitalization, or the need for intervention to prevent permanent impairment. Among the total MDAEs, 118 (77.6%) were classified as non-serious, while 34 (22.4%) were identified as serious. Almost all MDAEs [71 (46.7%)] were device-associated and were disposed off within healthcare facilities [96 (63.2%)]. In terms of patient outcomes, 141 participants (92.7%) achieved recovery. The presence of comorbidities and hyperpolypharmacy significantly affected the adverse events caused by the MDs [P=0.04]. Interpretation & conclusions MDAEs among individuals with respiratory disorder compromise the prognosis and complicate therapeutic outcomes. Individuals with a comorbid condition and hyper polypharmacy experienced significantly high MDAEs suggesting that such individuals, should be monitored for early detection of MD associated adverse drug events to restrict their implications on patient care.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedTertiary Care CentersAdverse eventsintensive care unitmateriovigilancemedical devicesrespiratory

Identifiers

PMID40878347
PMCPMC12550380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.