2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing costs and clinical outcomes of open endotracheal suctioning with closed endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1). After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared CTSS and OTSS were identified [14,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Two major CTSS sales companies were contacted, but no new information was obtained.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…1). After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared CTSS and OTSS were identified [14,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Two major CTSS sales companies were contacted, but no new information was obtained.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The follow-up periods were reported in six trials, and ranged from 7 to 31 days [30,33,34,37,41,44]. Four trials were conducted in medical ICUs [32,35,36,40], four in surgical ICUs [14,30,31,38], and six in mixed (medico-surgical) ICUs [33,34,37,39,43,44]; the remainder was unclear. Six trials used Trach Care, two Steri Cath, two Hi Care, and one Ty Care as the CTSS; the CTSS brand was unclear in five trials.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations