SynthesisNursing open2026
Ocular Complications During Prone Positioning Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo synthesise ocular outcomes, assessment methods and associated factors among critically ill adults exposed to prone positioning ventilation.
designSystematic review with narrative synthesis. REVIEW
methodsTwo reviewers independently completed study selection, data extraction and methodological appraisal. Findings were synthesised narratively because heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2025, with backward citation searching.
resultsSeven studies involving 722 critically ill adults were included. Reported findings included chemosis, exposure keratopathy, conjunctival abnormalities and increased intraocular pressure. Chemosis and exposure keratopathy were the most frequent ocular surface manifestations. Two studies evaluated physiological increases in intraocular pressure rather than clinical complications, and several mixed intensive care cohorts lacked prone-position-specific estimates. Reported associated factors included lagophthalmos, deeper sedation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure, prolonged or repeated prone positioning and increased ocular secretions, although multivariable evidence was limited.
conclusionCritically ill adults exposed to prone positioning may develop ocular abnormalities, but heterogeneous designs, assessment methods, and outcome reporting prevent reliable estimation of incidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Ocular risk assessment should be integrated before, during, and after prone positioning. Preventive eye care, repeated assessment, documentation, and timely ophthalmological referral may support early identification and reduce avoidable injury. IMPACT: This review addresses fragmented evidence on ocular safety during prone positioning, identifies common ocular findings and highlights clinically relevant associated factors. The findings are relevant to critical care nurses and prone-positioned adults. REPORTING
methodThe review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and the public were not involved because this review analysed published studies. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD420251268507.
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.