Question · asked by 1 review
Saline rinse plus swab vs Saline-soaked swab: Incidence of VAP
- Population
- Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU
- Intervention
- Saline rinse plus swab
- Comparison
- Saline-soaked swab
- Outcome
- Incidence of VAP
Saline rinse plus swab led to lower incidence of VAP compared with saline-soaked swab alone (usual care); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Saline rinse plus swab vs Saline-soaked swab alone (usual care) Incidence of VAP · Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU Saline rinse plus swab led to lower incidence of VAP compared with saline-soaked swab alone (usual care); GRADE not reported. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator‐associated pneumonia (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.41 [0.23, 0.72] | 2 studies · 153 participants | GRADE not reported |
Saline rinse plus swab vs Saline-soaked swab alone (usual care) Incidence of VAP · Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU Saline rinse plus swab led to lower incidence of VAP compared with saline-soaked swab alone (usual care); GRADE not reported. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator‐associated pneumonia (2016) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD008367.PUB3, superseded | RR 0.41 [0.23, 0.72] | 2 studies · 153 participants | GRADE not reported |
Saline rinse plus swab vs Saline-soaked swab alone (usual care) Incidence of VAP · Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU Saline rinse plus swab led to lower incidence of VAP compared with saline-soaked swab alone (usual care); GRADE not reported. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator‐associated pneumonia (2013) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD008367.PUB2, superseded | OR 0.30 [0.14, 0.63] | 2 studies · 40 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator‐associated pneumonia 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.