Trial reportBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Effect of speaking valves on early mobilization of patients in intensive care units following tracheostomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of Speaking Valves (SVs) on early mobilization in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients following tracheostomy.
methodsThe participants of this study were patients undergoing tracheotomy who were admitted to ICU of The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University from December 2020 to June 2023. Patients were divided into a test group (n = 47) and a control group (n = 43) based on the random number table method. Further comparison was made on the five-level EuroQol five-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) score, swallowing function grading, mobility score, and adverse reactions.
resultsThe experimental group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of mobility assessed by Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) (median [IQR] at day-21: 28.0 [25.0‒30.0] vs. control: 22.0 [20.0‒25.0], p < 0.001). The experimental group showed greater improvements in secondary outcomes: EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) (control: 72.40 ± 17.23 to 79.70 ± 11.40; experimental: 73.10 ± 15.23 to 92.34 ± 11.78; p < 0.001), EuroQol five-Dimensional (EQ-5D) scores (control: 0.80 ± 0.21 to 0.90 ± 0.14; experimental: 0.81 ± 0.14 to 0.94 ± 0.13; p < 0.001), and swallowing function grading (control: median 5.00 to 4.00; experimental: 5.00 to 2.00; p < 0.001) following rehabilitation.
conclusionThe addition of SVs to standard rehabilitation significantly enhanced early mobilization, respiratory function and coughing capacity in patients with tracheostomy. These findings support incorporating SVs into ICU care protocols to prioritize early mobilization, potentially shortening hospital stays and improving functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
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.