↓ Skip to main content

Subglottic secretion suction for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Subglottic secretion suction for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Published in
Critical Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1527-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi Mao, Ling Gao, Guoqi Wang, Chao Liu, Yan Zhao, Wanjie Gu, Hongjun Kang, Feihu Zhou

Abstract

Potential benefits of subglottic secretion suction for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are not fully understood. We searched Cochrane Central, PubMed, and EMBASE up to March 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared subglottic secretion suction versus non-subglottic secretion suction in adults with mechanical ventilation. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3, trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 and STATA 12.0. The primary outcome was incidence of VAP. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Twenty RCTs (N = 3544) were identified. Subglottic secretion suction was associated with reduction of VAP incidence in four high quality trials (relative risk (RR) 0.54, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.74; p < 0.00001) and in all trials (RR = 0.55, 95 % CI 0.48- 0.63; p < 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses did not show differences in the pooled results. Additionally, the results of the above-mentioned analyses were confirmed in TSA. GRADE level was high. Subglottic secretion suction significantly reduced incidence of early onset VAP, gram-positive or gram-negative bacteria causing VAP, and duration of mechanical ventilation. It delayed the time-to-onset of VAP. However, no significant differences in late onset VAP, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality, or ICU length of stay were found. Subglottic secretion suction decreased VAP incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation and delayed VAP onset. However, subglottic secretion suction did not reduce mortality and length of ICU stay. Subglottic secretion suction is recommended for preventing VAP and for reducing ventilation length, especially in the population at high risk of early onset VAP. A protocol of this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42015015715 ); registered on 5 January 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Cyprus 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 18%
Student > Postgraduate 20 17%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 11 9%
Other 11 9%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 28%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Psychology 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 28 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,305,970
of 17,465,371 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,248
of 5,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,219
of 301,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#133
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,465,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.