Cochrane · systematic review · CD011833
Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation
Rose, L, Adhikari, NKJ, Leasa, D, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques versus no cough augmentation technique
Population: critically‐ill mechanically‐ventilated adults and children requiring extubation from mechanical ventilation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Extubation successa Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique | RR 1.58 [1.13, 2.2] | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Duration of mechanical ventilationb Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
ICU mortalitya Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events 1. Hypotensionc 2. Hypertensiond 3. Secretion encumbrance resulting in severe hypoxaemia requiring reintubationc Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique | RR 3.4 [0.1, 81.3] | 1 study · 75 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |