ArticleRespiratory research & clinical practice2026
Patient-ventilator asynchrony knowledge, attitudes, and practices among ICU health care professionals: questionnaire development.
Article in Respiratory research & clinical practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the development and validation process of a questionnaire to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of ICU health care professionals regarding patient-ventilator asynchrony. Methods: This was a knowledge, attitudes, and practices questionnaire development study. Item generation was guided by a literature-based conceptual framework, followed by expert review to establish face and content validity. The instrument was refined through specialists in mechanical ventilation and questionnaire design. The tenth version was piloted in Portuguese among ICU health care professionals, including a 30-day test-retest assessment. Results: The final version of the questionnaire comprised 24 items (knowledge, 14 items; attitudes, 4; and practices, 6). Of the 83 ICU health care professionals who consented to participate, 49 completed at least 80% of the questionnaire twice and were included in the analysis. The knowledge section showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73) and moderate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.67). Median knowledge scores were 71 [57-79] at test and 64 [50-79] at retest, out of 100 (p = 0.052). Attitude scores also showed good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.81) and a moderate correlation (r = 0.60; p < 0.001), with median scores of 75 (out of 100) in both rounds. Practice item responses were generally consistent between test and retest. Conclusions: We developed a questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to patient-ventilator asynchrony among ICU health care professionals, with evidence of face and content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
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.