↓ Skip to main content

Impact of oral care with versus without toothbrushing on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Impact of oral care with versus without toothbrushing on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11675
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gu WJ, Gong YZ, Pan L, Ni YX, Liu JC, Wan-Jie Gu, Yi-Zhen Gong, Lei Pan, Yu-Xia Ni, Jing-Chen Liu

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a common hazardous complication in mechanically ventilated patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of toothbrushing as a component of oral care on the prevention of VAP in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase (up to April 2012) was conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with toothbrushing. Relative risks (RRs), weighted mean differences (WMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 828 patients met the inclusion criteria. Toothbrushing did not significantly reduce the incidence of VAP (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.21) and intensive care unit mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10). Toothbrushing was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD, -0.88 days; 95% CI, -2.58 to 0.82), length of intensive care unit stay (WMD, -1.48 days; 95% CI, -3.40 to 0.45), antibiotic-free day (WMD, -0.52 days; 95% CI, -2.82 to 1.79), or mechanical ventilation-free day (WMD, -0.43 days; 95% CI, -1.23 to 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Oral care with toothbrushing versus without toothbrushing does not significantly reduce the incidence of VAP and alter other important clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously since relevant evidence is still limited, although accumulating. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Belgium 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Other 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 7 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,678,986
of 12,269,384 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,800
of 3,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,049
of 127,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#30
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,269,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 127,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.