↓ Skip to main content

Oral hygiene in intensive care unit patients with photodynamic therapy: study protocol for randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Oral hygiene in intensive care unit patients with photodynamic therapy: study protocol for randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2133-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Alves Da Collina, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini-Horliana, Daniela de Fátima Teixeira da Silva, Priscila Larcher Longo, Maria Luisa Faria Makabe, Christiane Pavani

Abstract

In intensive care units (ICUs), nosocomial infections are prevalent conditions and they have been related to high mortality indexes. Some studies have suggested that inefficient oral hygiene and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are related. Nowadays, in the Brazilian public health system there is no well-defined protocol for oral hygiene in an ICU. Due to the drawbacks of the use of antibiotics, photodynamic therapy (PDT) has emerged as an interesting technique in order to reduce antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Methylene blue (MB) is the most common chemical agent for PDT in Brazil. However, new formulations for improved effectiveness are still lacking. The objective of this study is to evaluate the use of an MB mouthwash as an effective oral-hygiene procedure in an ICU and to show that oral hygiene using PDT with MB mouthwash may reduce VAP frequency to rates similar to, or higher than, chlorhexidine. Phase 1 will evaluate the most effective cleaning procedure, while phase 2 will correlate oral hygiene to VAP incidence. At the start of phase 1, the ICU patients will be randomly allocated into three different groups (10 patients/group): the efficacy of chlorhexidine, classical MB-PDT, and mouthwash MB-PDT will all be measured for the quantification of viable bacteria, both pre- and post-treatment, by a Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). In phase 2, the most effective procedure found in phase 1 and a mechanical cleaning with filtered water will be carried out daily, once a day, over 5 days, with a total of 52 ICU patients randomly allocated into the two groups. The clinical records will be evaluated in order to find any pneumonic diagnoses. Since a variety of bacterial species are related to VAP, a universal primer for bacteria will be used in order to quantify the total bacteria count in the participants' samples. In order to quantify only the living bacteria before DNA extraction, the samples will be treated with propidium monoazide. This will infiltrate the dead bacteria and will intercalate the DNA bases, avoiding their DNA amplification. This will be the first trial to evaluate MB-PDT in a mouthwash formula that can increase the effectiveness due to the control of MB aggregation. The results of this study will be able to generate an easy and low-cost protocol to be used in an ICU for the Brazilian public health system. This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Conjunto Hospitalar do Mandaqui (1.317.834, CAAE: 49273515.9.3001.5551) and it was registered in Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC number: RBR-94bvrc;). First received: 12 July 2015; 1st version 6 June 2016. Data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 21%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 23 26%

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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#9,317,917
of 11,653,629 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,264
of 2,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,048
of 263,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#57
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,653,629 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 263,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.