Observational studyMedicine2026
Application of an original improved U-pillow in patients with prone position ventilation: A comparative retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients in the prone position in the intensive care unit are at risk of facial skin failure, a concern that has traditionally been managed through frequent repositioning, often necessitating considerable effort from healthcare practitioners. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an original improved U-shaped pillows in preventing pressure injuries to the head and face of patients undergoing prone ventilation. A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 61 patients who underwent prone positioning ventilation. The study group consisted of 31 patients who used the improved U-shaped pillow, which features 7 independent air chambers designed for dynamic segmental pressure regulation. The control group was composed of 30 patients who underwent decompression using traditional integrated U-shaped sponge pillows, which lack pressure-adjustment capabilities. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at baseline. While the intergroup difference in facial pressure injury incidence was not statistically significant (6.5% vs 23.3%, P = .081) and no significant benefit was detected in the univariate analysis (P = .080), a significant advantage of the new pillow emerged after adjusting for potential confounders. In the multivariate regression analysis, the study group demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of facial pressure injuries compared to the control group (P = .048). A comparison of the average number of head position changes per hour between the 2 patient groups during prone positioning indicated that the study group demonstrated significantly better performance than the control group. This difference was statistically significant (0.55 ± 0.10 vs 0.68 ± 0.15, P <.001). The satisfaction level among nurses in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group (3.61 ± 0.69 vs 3.04 ± 0.69, P = .003). A statistically significant positive correlation was identified between body mass index and pressure injury incidence (P = .004). The application of the original improved U-shaped pillow was associated with a reduced incidence of craniofacial pressure injuries in prone-ventilated patients after adjustment for confounders, while also mitigating the clinical nursing burden and improving job satisfaction among healthcare staff.
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.