↓ Skip to main content

Oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
60 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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 care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012416.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chang Liu, Yubin Cao, Jie Lin, Linda Ng, Ian Needleman, Tanya Walsh, Chunjie Li

Abstract

Pneumonia occurring in residents of long-term care facilities and nursing homes can be termed 'nursing home-acquired pneumonia' (NHAP). NHAP is the leading cause of mortality among residents. NHAP may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung, and by failure of the individual's defence mechanisms to eliminate the aspirated bacteria. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might be effective in reducing the risk of NHAP. To assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 November 2017) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to 15 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We also searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Sciencepaper Online to 20 November 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models. We included four RCTs (3905 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. The studies all evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not pool the results from one study (N = 834 participants), which was stopped at interim analysis due to lack of a clear difference between groups.We were unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower incidence rate of NHAP compared with usual oral care over an 18-month period (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46; one study, 2513 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).We were also unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower number of first episodes of pneumonia compared with usual care over a 24-month period (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; one study, 366 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).There was low-quality evidence from two studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72, 507 participants analysed).We were uncertain whether or not professional oral care may reduce all-cause mortality compared to usual care, when measured at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.15; one study, 141 participants analysed; very low-quality evidence).Only one study (834 participants randomised) measured adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining.No studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care. Although low-quality evidence suggests that professional oral care could reduce mortality due to pneumonia in nursing home residents when compared to usual care, this finding must be considered with caution. Evidence for other outcomes is inconclusive. We found no high-quality evidence to determine which oral care measures are most effective for reducing nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Further trials are needed to draw reliable conclusions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 12 27%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 42%
Unspecified 13 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 03 May 2019.
All research outputs
#297,169
of 12,913,830 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#832
of 10,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,211
of 263,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,913,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 263,960 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.