IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Sachika Yamakita
  • Takeshi Unoki
  • Sachi Niiyama
  • Eri Natsuhori
  • Junpei Haruna
  • Tomoki Kuribara

Abstract

Oral hygiene care is important for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention. However, the optimal oral hygiene care approach remains unclear. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention in critically ill patients, and the methods were ranked. A literature search of three representative databases was conducted. We only analyzed parallel randomized controlled trials conducted to analyze the use antiseptics or toothbrushes in oral hygiene care for adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. The outcome measure was the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the confidence in the evidence was evaluated using the CINeMA approach. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.2.0., GeMTC package, and JAGS 4.3.1. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022333270). Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis and twelve randomized controlled trials (2395 participants) were included in the network meta-analysis. Over 50% of the included studies were conducted in medical-surgical intensive care units. Ten treatments were analyzed and 12 pairwise comparisons were conducted in the 12 included studies. Analysis using surface under the cumulative ranking curves revealed that brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% was most likely the optimal intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (88.4%), followed by the use of chlorhexidine 0.12% alone (76.1%), and brushing alone (73.2%). Oral hygiene care methods that included brushing had high rankings. In conclusion, brushing combined with chlorhexidine 0.12% may be an effective intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Furthermore, brushing may be the optimal oral hygiene care method for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Further research is needed to verify these findings as the CINeMA confidence rate was low for each comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Sachika Yamakita & Takeshi Unoki & Sachi Niiyama & Eri Natsuhori & Junpei Haruna & Tomoki Kuribara, 2024. "Comparative efficacy of various oral hygiene care methods in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313057
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313057
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313057&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adriani Nikolakopoulou & Julian P T Higgins & Theodoros Papakonstantinou & Anna Chaimani & Cinzia Del Giovane & Matthias Egger & Georgia Salanti, 2020. "CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-19, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mateus B Souza & Rodrigo O Mascarenhas & Laisa B Maia & Letícia S Fonseca & Hytalo J Silva & Rutger M J de Zoete & James H McAuley & Nicholas Henschke & Vinicius C Oliveira, 2022. "Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia: Protocol for a network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Anelise Silveira & Camila Lima & Lauren Beaupre & Judy Chepeha & Allyson Jones, 2024. "Shoulder specific exercise therapy is effective in reducing chronic shoulder pain: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Ding Yu & Jun-xia Li & Yuan Cheng & Han-dong Wang & Xin-di Ma & Tao Ding & Zhong-ning Zhu, 2025. "Comparative efficacy of different antihypertensive drug classes for stroke prevention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-28, February.
    4. Khanh Dinh Hoang & Jin-Hua Chen & Tsai-Wei Huang & Yi-No Kang & Chiehfeng Chen, 2024. "Oral aspirin for preventing colorectal adenoma recurrence: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Jesse Elliott & Amy Johnston & Don Husereau & Shannon E Kelly & Caroline Eagles & Alice Charach & Shu-Ching Hsieh & Zemin Bai & Alomgir Hossain & Becky Skidmore & Eva Tsakonas & Dagmara Chojecki & Muh, 2020. "Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-35, October.
    6. Jihoon Lim & Imen Farhat & Antonios Douros & Dimitra Panagiotoglou, 2022. "Relative effectiveness of medications for opioid-related disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-30, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.