| Title |
Ventilator-associated pneumonia with or without toothbrushing: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-012-1605-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Lorente, M. Lecuona, A. Jiménez, S. Palmero, E. Pastor, N. Lafuente, M. J. Ramos, M. L. Mora, A. Sierra |
| Abstract |
Certain guidelines for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) recommend oral care with chlorhexidine, but none refer to the use of a toothbrush for oral hygiene. The role of toothbrush use has received scant attention. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the incidence of VAP in critical care patients receiving oral care with and without manual brushing of the teeth. This was a randomized clinical trial developed in a 24-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for than 24 h were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral care with or without toothbrushing. All patients received oral care with 0.12 % chlorhexidine digluconate. Tracheal aspirate samples were obtained during endotracheal intubation, then twice a week, and, finally, on extubation. There were no significant differences between the two groups of patients in the baseline characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the incidence of VAP (21 of 217 [9.7 %] with toothbrushing vs. 24 of 219 [11.0 %] without toothbrushing; odds ratio [OR] = 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.469-1.615; p = 0.75). Adding manual toothbrushing to chlorhexidine oral care does not help to prevent VAP in critical care patients on mechanical ventilation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 59 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 57 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,277,474
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,105
of 2,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,114
of 159,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 159,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.