Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008863Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 08 diciembre 2010see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Anestesia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 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

  • Agi Holland

    Correspondencia a: School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

    [email protected]

  • Fiona Smith

    School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

  • Linda Veitch

    School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

  • Gill McCrossan

    School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

  • Caroline Nicholson

    Critical Care Education Team, Lothian University Hospitals Division, Edinburgh, UK

  • Sandra Bonellie

    School of Accounting, Economics and Statistics, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Contributions of authors

Conceiving the review: Agi Holland (AH)

Co‐ordinating the review: AH

Undertaking manual searches: AH and Gill McCrossan (GM)

Screening search results: AH and Linda Veitch (LV)

Organizing retrieval of papers: GM and LV

Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: AH and LV

Appraising quality of papers: AH and Fiona Smith (FS)

Abstracting data from papers: AH and FS

Writing to authors of papers for additional information: GM and LV

Providing additional data about papers:  GM and LV

Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies:AH, GM and LV

Data management for the review: AH and FS

Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.0): AH and FS

RevMan statistical data: AH and FS

Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: Sandra Bonellie (SB)

Double entry of data: (data entered by person one:AH; data entered by person two: FS)

Interpretation of data: AH, LV, FS, GM, SB

Statistical inferences: SB

Writing the review: AH, LV, FS, GM

Securing funding for the review: AH

Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: AH

Guarantor for the review (one author): AH

Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: AH

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Edinburgh Napier University, UK.

External sources

  • Karen Hovhannisyan, Denmark.

    Help with search strategies

  • The Chief Scientist Office of The Scottish Government, UK.

    Financial support to undertake the Review through Grant number CZG/2/417

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof Harald Herkner (content editor), Prof Nathan Pace (statistical editor), Prof Claude Guerin, and Dr Mark D Neuman, (peer reviewers) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Jun 06

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

Review

Agi Holland, Fiona Smith, Kay Penny, Gill McCrossan, Linda Veitch, Caroline Nicholson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008863.pub2

2010 Dec 08

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

Protocol

Agi Holland, Fiona Smith, Linda Veitch, Gill McCrossan, Caroline Nicholson, Sandra Bonellie

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008863

Keywords

MeSH

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.