Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Sistemas de aspiración traqueal cerrados versus sistemas de aspiración traqueal abiertos para pacientes adultos con ventilación mecánica

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004581.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 17 octubre 2007see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Atención crítica y de emergencia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Ivan Solà

    Correspondencia a: Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Salvador Benito

    Emergency Unit, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain

Contributions of authors

Conceiving the review: Mireia Subirana (MS)
Co‐ordinating the review: MS
Undertaking manual searches: Ivan Solà (IS)
Screening search results: IS, MS
Organizing retrieval of papers: IS
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: IS, MS, Salvador Benito (SB)
Appraising quality of papers: IS, MS
Abstracting data from papers: IS, MS
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: IS
Providing additional data about papers: IS
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: IS, MS
Data management for the review: IS
Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 4.2): IS, MS
RevMan statistical data: IS, MS
Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: not applicable
Double entry of data: IS entered the data and MS checked it for accuracy
Interpretation of data: IS, MS, SB
Statistical analysis: not applicable
Writing the review: IS, MS, SB
Securing funding for the review: MS
Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: MS
Guarantor for the review (one author): MS
Responsible for reading and checking review before submission: IS

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Spain.

  • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Spain.

External sources

  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (contract no. PI020512), Ministry of Health, Spain.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful and indebted to Dr Mathew Zacharias (content editor) and Prof Nathan Pace (statistical editor) for their helpful comments that contributed to, and improved the quality of this review.

We would like to thank the following people.

Mrs Lynne Williams (peer reviewer) for commenting on the protocol. Dr Maureen O. Meade and Dr Malcolm G Booth (peer reviewers), Kathie Godfrey and Mark Edward (consumers) for commenting on the review.

Dr Phillipe Éckert, Mrs María Jesus García, Karin Kirchhoff, Dr Marin Kollef, Dr Leonardo Lorente, Mrs Donna Prentice, and Dr Arzu Topeli for their kind attention in providing additional information about their studies.

Mrs Marta Roqué for her statistical support with the first draft of this review.

Mrs Susanne Ebrahim (Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Review Group) for her help in translating German articles.

The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the Epidemiology Department who supported this study, particularly Dr. Xavier Bonfill, Ignasi Bolíbar, Ignasi Gich, Teresa Puig and Gerard Urrútia. We would also like to acknowledge the support provided by Carolyn Newey.

We would be grateful to any readers who provide further studies for assessment for future updates.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2007 Oct 17

Closed tracheal suction systems versus open tracheal suction systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients

Review

Ivan Solà, Salvador Benito

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004581.pub2

2003 Jul 21

Closed tracheal suctions systems versus open tracheal systems for mechanically ventilated adult patients

Protocol

Mireia Subirana, Ivan Solà, Josep Mª Garcia, Enrique Laffaire, Salvador Benito

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004581

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.