Comparative efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0313057
Sachika Yamakita, Takeshi Unoki, Sachi Niiyama, Eri Natsuhori, Junpei Haruna, Tomoki Kuribara
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Sachika Yamakita, Takeshi Unoki, Sachi Niiyama, Eri Natsuhori, Junpei Haruna, Tomoki Kuribara","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0313057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Oral hygiene care is important for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention. However, the optimal oral hygiene care approach remains unclear. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in critically ill patients, and the methods were ranked. A literature search of three representative databases was conducted. We only analyzed parallel randomized controlled trials conducted to analyze the use antiseptics or toothbrushes in oral hygiene care for adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. The outcome measure was the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the confidence in the evidence was evaluated using the CINeMA approach. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.2.0., GeMTC package, and JAGS 4.3.1. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022333270). Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis and twelve randomized controlled trials (2395 participants) were included in the network meta-analysis. Over 50% of the included studies were conducted in medical-surgical intensive care units. Ten treatments were analyzed and 12 pairwise comparisons were conducted in the 12 included studies. Analysis using surface under the cumulative ranking curves revealed that brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% was most likely the optimal intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (88.4%), followed by the use of chlorhexidine 0.12% alone (76.1%), and brushing alone (73.2%). Oral hygiene care methods that included brushing had high rankings. In conclusion, brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% may be an effective intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Furthermore, brushing may be the optimal oral hygiene care method for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Further research is needed to verify these findings as the CINeMA confidence rate was low for each comparison.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0313057"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11642986/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313057","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Oral hygiene care is important for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention. However, the optimal oral hygiene care approach remains unclear. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in critically ill patients, and the methods were ranked. A literature search of three representative databases was conducted. We only analyzed parallel randomized controlled trials conducted to analyze the use antiseptics or toothbrushes in oral hygiene care for adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. The outcome measure was the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the confidence in the evidence was evaluated using the CINeMA approach. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.2.0., GeMTC package, and JAGS 4.3.1. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022333270). Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis and twelve randomized controlled trials (2395 participants) were included in the network meta-analysis. Over 50% of the included studies were conducted in medical-surgical intensive care units. Ten treatments were analyzed and 12 pairwise comparisons were conducted in the 12 included studies. Analysis using surface under the cumulative ranking curves revealed that brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% was most likely the optimal intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (88.4%), followed by the use of chlorhexidine 0.12% alone (76.1%), and brushing alone (73.2%). Oral hygiene care methods that included brushing had high rankings. In conclusion, brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% may be an effective intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Furthermore, brushing may be the optimal oral hygiene care method for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Further research is needed to verify these findings as the CINeMA confidence rate was low for each comparison.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信