SynthesisNursing in critical care2025
Comparative Efficacy of Endotracheal Tube Holders Versus Traditional Securing Methods in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Efficacy of Endotracheal Tube Holders Versus Traditional Securing Methods in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nursing in critical care · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn endotracheal tube (ETT) can be securely positioned using a holder or traditional securing method. The holder is a one-piece moulded design, and traditional securing methods usually involve manual fixation using adhesive tape or bandages. ETT holders are superior to traditional securing methods in reducing medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs) and the incidence of tube dislodgement. However, evidence from previous meta-analyses is highly heterogeneous.
aimTo compare the efficacy of ETT holders and traditional securing methods through a systematic review and meta-analysis of MDRPIs and dislodgement rates. STUDY
designFour major databases were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to estimate the risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence intervals. The primary and secondary outcomes were the total number of MDRPIs and tube dislodgements, respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the severity of the condition and nutritional status.
resultsA systematic search yielded 3737 references, among which seven met the inclusion criteria. These included three RCTs, two quasi-experimental cohorts and two observational cohorts (n = 3025). Pooled analyses showed a significant reduction in total MDRPI risk and a decreasing trend of composite tube dislodgements for ETT holders compared with traditional securing methods. Subgroup analysis indicated that ETT holders were less effective than traditional securing methods in preventing MDRPIs in patients who were not malnourished or with less severe conditions.
conclusionCompared with traditional securing methods, ETT holders significantly reduced MDRPI incidence and showed a decreasing trend in dislodgement. However, these effects were not evident in patients with less severe conditions or in those who were not malnourished. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study highlights that ETT holders significantly reduced MDRPIs, particularly in patients with more severe disease (APACHE II score ≥ 20). Unplanned dislodgements were consistently less frequent with ETT holders; however, the preventive effect on MDRPIs was less evident in patients with less severe disease or better nutritional status. Therefore, disease severity and nutritional status should guide the choice of ETT securement methods and support ICU nurses in enhancing airway safety, minimising complications and standardising care.
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.