Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique: Adverse events 1. Hypotensionc 2. Hypertensiond 3. Secretion encumbrance resulting in severe hypoxaemia requiring reintubationc
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation… changes adverse events 1. Hypotensionc 2. Hypertensiond 3. Secretion… compared with no cough augmentation technique (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique Adverse events 1. Hypotensionc 2. Hypertensiond 3. Secretion encumbrance resulting in severe hypoxaemia requiring reintubationc · critically‐ill mechanically‐ventilated adults and children requiring extubation from mechanical ventilation It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation… changes adverse events 1. Hypotensionc 2. Hypertensiond 3. Secretion… compared with no cough augmentation technique (very low certainty). Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.4 [0.1, 81.3] | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.