↓ Skip to main content

Timing of tracheotomy in ICU patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
133 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 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
Timing of tracheotomy in ICU patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1138-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koji Hosokawa, Masaji Nishimura, Moritoki Egi, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract

The optimal timing of tracheotomy in critically ill patients remains a topic of debate. We performed a systematic review to clarify the potential benefits of early versus late tracheotomy. We searched PubMed and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes in patients managed with early and late tracheotomy. A random-effects meta-analysis, combining data from three a priori-defined categories of timing of tracheotomy (within 4 versus after 10 days, within 4 versus after 5 days, within 10 versus after 10 days), was performed to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR). Of the 142 studies identified in the search, 12, including a total of 2,689 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The tracheotomy rate was significantly higher with early than with late tracheotomy (87 % versus 53 %, OR 16.1 (5.7-45.7); p <0.01). Early tracheotomy was associated with more ventilator-free days (WMD 2.12 (0.94, 3.30), p <0.01), a shorter ICU stay (WMD -5.14 (-9.99, -0.28), p = 0.04), a shorter duration of sedation (WMD -5.07 (-10.03, -0.10), p <0.05) and reduced long-term mortality (OR 0.83 (0.69-0.99), p = 0.04) than late tracheotomy. This updated meta-analysis reveals that early tracheotomy is associated with higher tracheotomy rates and better outcomes, including more ventilator-free days, shorter ICU stays, less sedation, and reduced long-term mortality, compared to late tracheotomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 221 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 41 18%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Postgraduate 31 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Student > Master 12 5%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 145 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Neuroscience 2 <1%
Engineering 2 <1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 58 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 30 July 2020.
All research outputs
#507,241
of 25,525,181 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#314
of 6,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,267
of 396,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#17
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,525,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 396,298 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 96% of its contemporaries.