| Title |
Effect of earplugs and eye masks on the sleep quality of intensive care unit patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Advanced Nursing, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jan.14914 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chiu‐Shu Fang, Hsiu‐Hung Wang, Ruey‐Hsia Wang, Fan‐Hao Chou, Shih‐Lun Chang, Ching‐Ju Fang |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the effect of earplugs and eye masks on the sleep quality of patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trial studies conducted before May 5, 2020 were searched for in Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System databases. Analyses in this study were according to the PRISMA statement. The heterogeneity of the data was investigated through sub-group analysis while a meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 797 patients from 13 studies were included in this study. Without considering alone or combined use of earplugs and eye masks, the meta-analysis supported that there was a significant effect on self-reported sleep quality. The overall standardized mean difference of the effect size was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.80, 2.09]). Sub-group analysis indicated that the use of earplugs alone had no significant effect on sleep quality (effect size: 0.07, 95% [CI]: [-0.50, 0.64]). The use of eye masks alone had a significant effect on sleep quality (effect size: 1.56, 95% [CI]: [1.08, 2.05]). The use of both earplugs and eye masks proved to have the largest effect size on sleep quality (effect size: 2.08, 95% [CI]: [0.95, 3.21]). The combined use of earplugs and eye masks or the standalone use of eye masks is a non-invasive, economical and effective way to promote sleep quality in adult ICU patients. Clinical nurses could use this meta-analysis as it recommends that nurses provide adult ICU patients with either one or both earplugs and eye masks to improve the patients' sleep quality. The review protocol was registered a priori and published online in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (www.crd.York.ac.uk/Prospero with the registration number # CRD42021221185). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 27% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 8% |
| Italy | 2 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 27% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 55% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 18% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 34 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 281. 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 24 January 2024.
All research outputs
#128,926
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Advanced Nursing
#19
of 5,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,826
of 461,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Advanced Nursing
#1
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 461,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.