Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0306277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306277

Prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals and the associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Temesgen Ayenew 1,*, Mihretie Gedfew 1, Mamaru Getie Fetene 2, Belayneh Shetie Workneh 3, Animut Takele Telayneh 4, Afework Edmealem 1, Bekele Getenet Tiruneh 5, Guadie Tewabe Yinges 6, Addisu Getie 1, Mengistu Abebe Meselu 1
Editor: Kahsu Gebrekidan7
PMCID: PMC11265714  PMID: 39042621

Abstract

Background

In the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV) is a typical way of respiratory support. The severity of the illness raises the likelihood of death in patients who require MV. Several studies have been done in Ethiopia; however, the mortality rate differs among them. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a pooled prevalence of mortality and associated factors among ICU-admitted patients receiving MV in Ethiopian hospitals.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 criteria to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis in this study. We searched PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, Embase, Hinari, and Web of Science and found 22 articles that met our inclusion criteria. We used a random-effects model. To identify heterogeneity within the included studies, meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used. We employed Egger’s regression test and funnel plots for assessing publication bias. STATA version 17.0 software was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of mortality among 7507 ICU-admitted patients from 22 articles, who received MV was estimated to be 54.74% [95% CI = 47.93, 61.55]. In the subgroup analysis by region, the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples (SNNP) subgroup (64.28%, 95% CI = 51.19, 77.37) had the highest prevalence. Patients with COVID-19 have the highest mortality rate (75.80%, 95% CI = 51.10, 100.00). Sepsis (OR = 6.85, 95%CI = 3.24, 14.46), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score<8 (OR = 6.58, 95%CI = 1.96, 22.11), admission with medical cases (OR = 4.12, 95%CI = 2.00, 8.48), Multi Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) (OR = 2.70, 95%CI = 4.11, 12.62), and vasopressor treatment (OR = 19.06, 95%CI = 9.34, 38.88) were all statistically associated with mortality.

Conclusion

Our review found that the pooled prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU-admitted patients in Ethiopia was considerably high compared to similar studies in the United States (US), China, and other countries. Sepsis, GCS<8, medical cases, MODS, and use of vasopressors were statistically associated with mortality. Clinicians should exercise caution while mechanically ventilating ICU-admitted patients with these factors. However, it should be noted that the exact cause and effect relationship could not be established with this meta-analysis, as the available evidence is not sufficient. Thus, more studies using prospective methods will be required.

Introduction

In the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV) is a typical way of respiratory support. Mechanical ventilation is necessary for 20%-40% of admissions to the ICU in the United States, according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine [1]. According to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, more than half of ICU patients are ventilated within the first 24 hours of admission [2]. According to a study by A. Anzueto and A. Esteban, 39% to 49% of ICU patients undergo mechanical ventilation at any given moment [3]. The global burden of patients who require mechanical ventilation has increased due to the emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral pandemic [4].

Between 3% and 20% of patients admitted to the hospital with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) require ICU treatment, and many of these patients require MV [5, 6]. Advances in critical care medicine, as well as the use of invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU, have resulted in better short-term survival and mortality outcomes in critically ill patients [7, 8]. However, the degree of illness of patients admitted to the ICU increases the likelihood of death for patients requiring MV [9]. According to a large cohort study conducted in southern Brazil, the mortality rate of patients who required MV was approximately 51% [10]. Other studies in United States (US), China and an international study reported mortality rates of 29.75%, 35.36% and 28%, respectively [7, 9, 11].

In Ethiopia, the mortality rate of ICU patients receiving MV ranges from 28.6% in Tigray region’s Ayder Comprehensive Specialized Hospital to 88.5% in Addis Abeba’s St. Paul’s Millennium Medical College (SPMMC) [12, 13]. Different determinant factors have been reported in different studies done in Ethiopia. These include the presence of at least one comorbid illness, the length of stay on MV for more than three days, night time admission to the ICU, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≤8 during admission, sepsis, use of vasopressor therapy, admission with medical cases, and multiple organ dysfunctions (MODS). The mortality rate also varies between different ICU settings, locations, and types of patients who were admitted to ICU and received MV [12, 1418]. However, data on the nationally representative pooled mortality rate of ICU patients receiving MV in Ethiopia are scarce.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a pooled prevalence of mortality and associated factors among ICU-admitted patients receiving MV in Ethiopian hospitals. The findings of this research will serve as a baseline reference for local and national quality improvement activities aimed at improving the survival of ICU-admitted patients using MV. Furthermore, this review will identify the determinant factors associated with mortality in patients admitted to the ICU receiving MV and will provide information to clinicians and researchers to develop strategies to mitigate the effect of the identified determinant factors associated with mortality.

Methods

Study design and search strategy

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the overall mortality rate among ICU patients in Ethiopia who received MV. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was used [19]. We ran a thorough search of many international databases, including PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, Embase, Hinari, and Web of Science, to find published articles. In addition, we searched Google Scholar for unpublished studies and grey literature. All published and gray literature was retrieved, critically analyzed, and assessed for inclusion in this study until December 30, 2023.

To retrieve the articles, the following search phrases were used with "AND" and "OR" Boolean operators: (’mortality’ OR "death’ OR ’mortality rate’ OR ’rates, mortality’ OR ’death rate’ OR ’rate, death’ OR ’rates, death’) AND (’associated factors’ OR ’predictors’ OR ’determinants’) AND (’Patients who received mechanical ventilation’ OR ’Patients who received Ventilations, Mechanical’ OR ’Patients who received Mechanical Ventilations’ OR ’Patients who received Ventilation, Mechanical’) AND (’Intensive Care Units’ OR ’Intensive Care Unit’ OR ’Unit, Intensive Care’) AND (’Ethiopia’ OR ’Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’). The search approach Co, Co, Pop (Condition, Context, and Population) was applied (S1 Table).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This review included observational studies (prospective and retrospective cohort, and cross-sectional) that reported the prevalence of mortality among pediatric and adult ICU-admitted patients who received MV in Ethiopia and were publishe or grey literature sources reported in English and published any time before December 30, 2023. Articles from which the prevalence of mortality could be estimated from the data reported in it were also included. However, articles that did not provide full text access, failed to report the prevalence of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU, and if the prevalence of mortality could not be estimated from the data within the article were excluded.

Outcomes

The primary outcome, represented as percentage and frequency in articles, was the prevalence of mortality among patients admitted to the ICU who received MV in Ethiopia. The secondary outcome was factors affecting the mortality of mechanically ventilated patients in Ethiopia, which were represented in the form of odds ratios and or in cross-tabulation as cell values of number of exposed with the outcome, number of exposed without the outcome, number of nonexposed with the outcome and number of nonexposed without the outcome. As a result, the secondary outcome was provided as odds ratios estimated by meta-analysis of odds ratios from individual studies that reported the determinant variable or the variable’s cell values from cross-tabulated data. The variables used in this meta-analysis to estimate the secondary outcome were those that were deemed statistically significant in the primary studies.

Data extraction and data quality assessment

The titles and abstracts of all the retrieved studies were independently evaluated by two reviewers (T.A. and M.A.M). Full-text review was open to papers that passed the title and abstract screening. Two authors (M.G and A.T.T) reviewed the full-text of eligible studies. The disagreement was resolved using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the final decision was made by the third reviewer (A.E).

Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to extract data that included the author’s name, publication year, study region, mortality prevalence, sample size, study design, and population category. Two independent reviewers (M.A.M and T.A) extracted and cross-checked the extracted data for any variations, and any inconsistencies were resolved by re-reading the full text.

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality assessment tool for prevalence studies [20]. The criteria to be met were as follows: 1) sample representativeness, 2) adequate sample size, 3) correct measurements, 4) acceptable statistical analysis procedures, and 5) response rates. Studies that met or above 50% of the assessment criteria were deemed low risk of bias.

Data analysis

To manage the selection process, Endnote version X8 reference management software was used. For data analysis, STATA version 17 was employed. Egger’s test and the funnel plot were used to look at potential publication bias [21, 22]. Article heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 statistics [23]. The random effects model of Der Simonian and Laird was used to assess the pooled prevalence of mortality and associated factors with 95% CI among ICU-admitted patients who underwent MV. To identify the source of heterogeneity, a meta-regression and subgroup analysis based on region, ICU type (adult versus pediatrics), COVID-19 status, study design and sample size was performed. The sensitivity test was performed to determine the impact of individual studies on the pooled estimate.

Results

Article selection

A total of 1,775 potentially qualifying studies were discovered using the PRISMA flow diagram. After eliminating duplicates and doing titles review, 26 studies were found. Four studies were excluded after full-text review because their primary outcome was incidence of mortality and they lacked data to estimate the prevalence of mortality. Finally, for the final systematic review and meta-analysis, 22 papers were included (Fig 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA flow-chart depicting the selection process of studies in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 1

Study characteristics

This review and meta-analysis included 22 studies with a total of 7507 participants that were conducted in Ethiopia and published in indexed journals or identified in grey literature. Seven of the studies were retrospective cohort, four were prospective cohort, and the remaining eleven were cross-sectional. The studies were done in Addis Ababa [12, 1518, 2428], Amhara [2933], Oromia [34], Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) region [14, 3537], and Tigray [13, 38]. The sample size ranged from 104 to 630 (Table 1).

Table 1. General characterisitcs of selected studies for the prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Authors name Region publication year Source type Study design Type of ICU Sample size Prevalence (%) JBI Quality
Alemayehu et al. [24] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Cross-sectional Adult 202 41.7 9
Debebe et al. [16] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 160 60.7 9
Berhe, et al. [13] Tigray 2023 Journal Prospective cohort Adult 286 28.6 9
Tilahun et al. [33] Amhara 2022 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 376 33.78 9
Zewudie et al. [32] Amhara 2023 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 388 55.98 9
Wotiye et al. [35] SNNP 2022 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 310 80.82 7
Bacha et al. [34] Oromia 2023 Journal Prospective cohort Pediatrics 206 34.5 7
S. Seid et al. [31] Amhara 2022 Journal Cross-sectional Adult 402 37.6 9
Tigist B. et al. [15] Addis Ababa 2021 Journal Cross-sectional Pediatrics 220 59.1 9
Hunegnaw et al. [18] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Cross-sectional Adult 247 57.1 9
S.M. Abate et al. [14] SNNP 2021 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 517 67.3 9
Abate et al. [36] SNNP 2023 Journal Prospective cohort Adult 630 49 9
Endeshaw et al. [25] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 410 77.45 9
Seifu et al. [26] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Cross-sectional Pediatrics 406 67.94 9
Demass et al. [30] Amhara 2023 Journal Cross-sectional Adult 568 51.35 9
Dendir et al. [37] SNNP 2023 Journal Cross-sectional Pediatrics 396 60.05 9
Gemechu E. et al. [28] Addis Ababa 2022 Journal Cross-sectional Pediatrics 260 34.5 6
Nega G et al. [27] Addis Ababa 2023 Journal Retrospective cohort Adult 496 63.3 9
Korbu et al. [12] Addis Ababa 2023 Journal Cross-sectional Adult 104 88.5 6
Tsegay et al. [17] Addis Ababa 2023 Thesis Cross-sectional Adult 210 54.8 9
Haftu et al. [38] Tigray 2018 Journal Cross-sectional Pediatrics 400 37.5 9
Teshager NW, et al. [29] Amhara 2020 Journal Prospective cohort Pediatrics 313 62.2 9

Prevalence of mortality among intensive care unit patients who received mechanical ventilation

This systematic review and meta-analysis determined that the pooled prevalence of mortality among ICU-admitted patients on MV to be 54.74% [95% CI = 47.93, 61.55]. There was a high inter-study heterogeneity (I2 = 97.5%, P = 0.0001). (Fig 2). As a result, a subgroup analysis was done to identify the source of hetrogeneity by study location, sample size category, ICU type, study design and COVID-19 status (COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 ICUs).

Fig 2. Prevalence of mortality among intensive care unit patients who received mechanical ventilation in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 2

Subgroup analysis

In the subgroup analysis by region, the SNNP subgroup (64.28%, 95% CI = 51.19, 77.37) had the highest prevalence (Fig 3). The subgroup analysis based on sample size shows that studies with sample size >400 results in a higher prevalence [59.15% (95% CI = 49.27, 69.04)] (Fig 4). Subgroup analysis by ICU type revealed that the studies conducted in adult ICUs yield the highest prevalence [56.4% (95% CI = 47.87, 65.21)] (Fig 5). In subgroup analysis by study design, retrospective cohort studies have the highest prevalence [62.8% (95% CI = 51.15, 74.46)], Whereas, prospective cohort studies show the lowest prevalence [43.63% (95% CI = 29.50, 57.76)] (Fig 6). The subgroup analysis of patients with COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients revealed a significant difference in prevalence. COVID-19 patients have the highest mortality rate (75.80%, 95% CI = 51.10, 100.00) (Fig 7).

Fig 3. Subgroup analysis by region of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Subgroup analysis by sample size of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Subgroup analysis by type of ICU of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 5

Fig 6. Subgroup analysis by study design of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 6

Fig 7. Subgroup analysis by COVID-19 of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 7

Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed to see whether each study had an impact on the pooled prevalence estimates. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that, in a random-effects model, no study affected the total pooled prevalence (Fig 8).

Fig 8. Sensitivity analysis of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 8

Publication bias

According to the results of Egger’s test with a p value of (p = 0.5331) and a symmetric funnel plot (Fig 9), there was no publication bias.

Fig 9. Funnel plot of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Fig 9

Meta-regression

Meta-regression using publication year, JBI Quality and sample size as factors was used to find the cause of heterogeneity. However, the results demonstrated that these variables were not significant enough to be identified as causes of heterogeneity (Table 2).

Table 2. Meta-regression analysis of factors affecting between study heterogeneity.

Hetroginity source Coefficients Standard error p-valuse
Publication year .9893661 3.08101 0.752
Sample size -.0053366 .0274522 0.848
JBI Quality -2.507077 4.303919 0.567

Factors associated with mortality

This meta-analysis discovered various determinant factors for mortality in mechanically ventilated ICU-admitted patients in Ethiopia. GCS<8, sepsis, vasopressor use, medical cases, and the presence of MODS were significantly associated with death. Patients on MV who had sepsis were 6.85 (OR = 6.85, 95% CI = 3.24, 14.46) times more likely to die than those who did not have sepsis. Patients who were mechanically ventilated and had GCS<8 at the beginning of ventilation were 6.58 [OR = 6.58, 95%CI = 1.96, 22.11] times more likely to die than those who did not. Mechanically ventilated patients admitted with medical cases were 4.12 [OR = 4.12, 95%CI = 2.00, 8.48] times more likely to die than surgical cases admitted. Patients with MODS and on mechanical ventilation were 2.70 [OR = 2.70, 95%CI = 4.11, 12.62] times more likely to die than those without MODS. Mechanically ventilated patients who received vasopressor medication were 19.06 times more likely to die [OR = 19.06, 95% CI = 9.34, 38.88] than those who did not (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors affecting mortality of mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia, 2023.

Predictors Number of studies OR (95% CI) I2 (p value)
Sepsis 2 [12, 24] 6.85 (3.24, 14.46) 0.0% (0.349)
GCS<8 4 [16, 17, 24, 36] 6.58 (1.96, 22.11) 93.4% (0.000)
ICU admission with medical cases 4 [15–17, 36] 4.12 (2.00, 8.48) 85.1% (0.000)
MODS 3 [15, 17, 24] 2.70 (4.11, 12.62) 46.6% (0.154)
Vassopressor treatment 2 [12, 24] 19.06 (9.34, 38.88) 0.0% (0.0975)

Discussion

Maintaining appropriate oxygenation and ventilation while lowering the risk of complications and enabling the patient’s lungs to recover or regain function is the major objective of MV. Although MV is not typically thought of as a treatment for acute respiratory failure per se, ventilator management needs to be closely monitored, as improper ventilation could aggravate morbidity and mortality by injuring the lungs or respiratory muscles [39, 40]. The general prevalence of mortality among ICU-admitted patients using MV in Ethiopia was estimated in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

The pooled prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU-admitted patients in Ethiopia was determined to be 54.74%, according to our review. Our findings are comparable to those of a Brazilian study (51%) [10]. Our result, however, is higher than those of other similar studies conducted in the US (29.75%) [11], China (35.36%) [9], and an international study(28%) [7]. The disparities could be related to differences in research settings, which could be described in terms of ICU advancements. The ICUs in developed nations such as the United States and China are more modern in terms of equipment and medical personnel than in Ethiopia [41].

In the subgroup analysis, there is a substantial difference in mortality prevalence between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Mortality was observed to be higher in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients (75.80% versus 52.64%). A comparable result was observed in another study, with mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients dying at a rate of 97% [42]. This could be attributed to the acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis caused by COVID-19 infection [43, 44].

Compared to the other regions included in the review, the SNNP region had the highest (64.28%) prevalence of mortality. This could be owing to a regional shortage of specialist personnel and other ICU resources. According to a review of critical care services in Ethiopia released in 2022, not all ICUs in the region had critical care physicians, and the region had insufficient ventilation capacity [45].

According to this meta-analysis, mechanically ventilated individuals with sepsis were 6.85 times more likely to die than those without sepsis. A study by the Japan Sepsis Alliance study group and the American Association for Respiratory Care support this [46, 47]. This could be because MV can induce lung injury, which can aggravate the condition in patients with sepsis. Furthermore, sepsis can result in respiratory failure, which increases the risk of death [48, 49].

Patients on MV with GCS<8 at the start of ventilation were 6.58 times more likely to die than those with GCS>8. Another study found that intubation at admission was linked to increased mortality, ICU days, and overall length of stay in patients with GCS of 6–8 [50]. Tanaka, A. et al., 2022 found that patients with GCS scores < 8 had significantly higher hospital mortality [51]. Unconsciousness during admission could be a sign of a more serious condition, leading to a higher mortality rate. However, it is crucial to highlight that the association between unconsciousness and mortality is not always clear and can rely on a variety of factors such as the underlying cause of unconsciousness, the duration of unconsciousness, and the patient’s overall health status [52, 53].

The mortality rate for mechanically ventilated patients admitted with medical cases was 4.12 times higher than that of individuals admitted with surgical cases. Other similar studies by Oscar Peñuelas et al. (2021) and the Respiratory Therapy Zone webpage’s (2024) report support this [53, 54]. This could be explained by the greater likelihood of chronic respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in those with medical diagnoses [55]. Another explanation is that individuals with medical conditions are often older and have more comorbidities, increasing the risk of complications and death. Patients with surgical diagnoses, on the other hand, are often younger and healthier, which can contribute to better outcomes [56].

Patients who were mechanically ventilated and had MODS were 2.70 times more likely to die than their counterparts. A comparable report has been found in two different studies: Xiao, K. et al., 2014 and Xiao, K. et al., 2020 [57, 58]. This might be due to the fact that MODS can set off a chain of events that might cause more damage to the body and increase the risk of complications and mortality [58].

Patients on MV who received vasopressor medication were 19.06 times more likely to die than those who did not. Another study conducted in Korea found that the use of vasopressors was strongly related to in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients [59]. This could be explained by the possibility of ICU-acquired weakness linked to the use of vasoactive drugs [60]. In most cases, ICU-acquired weakness is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality [61, 62].

Strength and limitation

To ensure that the findings were thorough and representative, this systematic review and meta-analysis attempted to encompass all available information, including published and gray literature, as well as cross-sectional and cohort study designs from Ethiopia. However, the included research covers only five of Ethiopia’s more than nine regions. As a result, considering the limitations inherent in the original studies would be advantageous to a more accurate interpretation of the results.

Conclusion

The pooled prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated ICU patients in Ethiopia was determined to be 54.74%, according to our review. This conclusion is significantly high compared to similar research in the US, China, and other countries. Sepsis, GCS<8 during admission to the ICU, medical cases, MODS, and the use of vasopressors were statistically associated with mortality. Clinicians should exercise caution while mechanically ventilating ICU-admitted patients with sepsis, who are unconscious with GCS<8, who have a medical case diagnosis, and who receive vasopressor medications. However, it is important to note that this meta-analysis could not demonstrate an accurate cause-and-effect association because the included studies only observe and record events without manipulating variables, and the available evidence is insufficient. Thus, more studies using prospective methods will be required to determine the factors that contribute to mortality in ICU-admitted patients on mechanical ventilation.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0306277.s001.docx (31.7KB, docx)
S1 Table. Logic grid and search strategy for the systematic review of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals, 2023.

(DOCX)

pone.0306277.s002.docx (14.2KB, docx)
S1 Data set. The minimal data set used for the values behind the statistical measures reported and the values used to build graphs.

(XLSX)

pone.0306277.s003.xlsx (16.2KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

Our grattitude goes to all individual at Debre Markos University, College of Health Sciences and School of Medicine, who assisted us in this review.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Fan E, Del Sorbo L, Goligher EC, Hodgson CL, Munshi L, Walkey AJ, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2017;195(9):1253–63. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201703-0548ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kirton O. Mechanical Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit. The American Association for the Surgery Trauma, Chicago, IL, accessed May. 2011;18:2021.
  • 3.Anzueto A, Esteban A. Utilization of Mechanical Ventilation in Critical Care. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2000: Springer; 2000. p. 265–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Duca A, Memaj I, Zanardi F, Preti C, Alesi A, Della Bella L, et al. Severity of respiratory failure and outcome of patients needing a ventilatory support in the Emergency Department during Italian novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 outbreak: Preliminary data on the role of Helmet CPAP and Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;24. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McWilliams D, Weblin J, Hodson J, Veenith T, Whitehouse T, Snelson C. Rehabilitation levels in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care requiring invasive ventilation. An observational study. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2021;18(1):122–9. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202005-560OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Singer AJ, Morley EJ, Meyers K, Fernandes R, Rowe AL, Viccellio P, et al. Cohort of four thousand four hundred four persons under investigation for COVID-19 in a New York hospital and predictors of ICU care and ventilation. Annals of emergency medicine. 2020;76(4):394–404. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Muriel A, Ferguson ND, Peñuelas O, Abraira V, et al. Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2013;188(2):220–30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201212-2169OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Donahoe MP. Current venues of care and related costs for the chronically critically ill. Respiratory care. 2012;57(6):867–88. doi: 10.4187/respcare.01656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liang J, Li Z, Dong H, Xu C. Prognostic factors associated with mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of 905 patients. Medicine. 2019;98(42). doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fialkow L, Farenzena M, Wawrzeniak IC, Brauner JS, Vieira SRR, Vigo A, et al. Mechanical ventilation in patients in the intensive care unit of a general university hospital in southern Brazil: an epidemiological study. Clinics. 2016;71:144–51. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2016(03)05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zilberberg MD, Nathanson BH, Ways J, Shorr AF. Characteristics, hospital course, and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged acute versus short-term mechanical ventilation in the United States, 2014–2018. Critical care medicine. 2020;48(11):1587–94. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Deksisa A, korbu S, Solomon M, Aklog E, Zewdie A, et al. Treatment Outcomes of Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 and Associated Factors among Hospitalized Patients at ICU of SPHMMC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. SciBase Crit Care Emerg Med. 2023; 1(1): 1001 [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Berhe E, Gebrehiwet TG, Teka H, Gebrehiwot KG, Abraha HE, Tequare MH. Clinical characteristics and determinants of invasive mechanical ventilation outcome in adult intensive care unit in Northern Ethiopia: A resource-limited setting. Journal of the Pan African Thoracic Society. 2023;4(1):11–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abate SM, Assen S, Yinges M, Basu B. Survival and predictors of mortality among patients admitted to the intensive care units in southern Ethiopia: A multi-center cohort study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2021;65:102318. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bacha T, Tsegaye N, Tuli W. Characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated pediatric patients in a tertiary referral hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: cross sectional study. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2021;31(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Debebe F, Goffi A, Haile T, Alferid F, Estifanos H, Adhikari NK. Predictors of ICU Mortality among Mechanically Ventilated Patients: An Inception Cohort Study from a Tertiary Care Center in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Critical Care Research and Practice. 2022;2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/7797328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tsegay K, Teklu T, Debebe F, Beza L. Outcomes of Patients on Mechanical Ventilation among Adult Intensive Care Units of Tikur Anbesa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2023.
  • 18.Hunegnaw W, Bayisa T. Outcome of mechanical ventilator use and associated factors at Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College Medical Intensive Care Unit. MJH; 2022.
  • 19.Tugwell P, Tovey D. PRISMA 2020. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;134:A5–A6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, et al. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). JBI evidence implementation. 2019;17(1):36–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sterne JA, Becker BJ, Egger M. The funnel plot. Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. 2005:73–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JA. Updated tests for small-study effects in meta-analyses. The Stata Journal. 2009;9(2):197–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thorlund K, Imberger G, Johnston BC, Walsh M, Awad T, Thabane L, et al. Evolution of heterogeneity (I2) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analyses. PloS one. 2012;7(7):e39471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alemayehu M, Azazh A, Hussien H, Baru A. Characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients at adult ICU of selected public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Open Access Emergency Medicine. 2022:395–404. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S369752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Endeshaw AS, Fekede MS, Gesso AS, Aligaz EM, Aweke S. Survival status and predictors of mortality among patients admitted to surgical intensive care units of Addis Ababa governmental hospitals, Ethiopia: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Frontiers in medicine. 2023;9:1085932. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1085932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Seifu A, Eshetu O, Tafesse D, Hailu S. Admission pattern, treatment outcomes, and associated factors for children admitted to pediatric intensive care unit of Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, 2021: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMC anesthesiology. 2022;22(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nega G, Sibhat M, Mekonnen A, Techane T. Survival status and predictors of mortality among mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in Addis Ababa COVID-19 Care Centers, Ethiopia: A survival analysis. F1000Research. 2023;11:1329. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Edae G, Tekleab AM, Getachew M, Bacha T. Admission pattern and treatment outcome in pediatric intensive care unit, Tertiary Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2022;32(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Teshager NW, Amare AT, Tamirat KS. Incidence and predictors of mortality among children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit at the University of Gondar comprehensive specialised hospital, northwest Ethiopia: a prospective observational cohort study. BMJ open. 2020;10(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Demass TB, Guadie AG, Mengistu TB, Belay ZA, Melese AA, Berneh AA, et al. The magnitude of mortality and its predictors among adult patients admitted to the Intensive care unit in Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. Scientific reports. 2023;13(1):12010. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39190-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Seid S, Adane H, Mekete G. Patterns of presentation, prevalence and associated factors of mortality in ICU among adult patients during the pandemic of COVID 19: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2022;77:103618. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zewudie MM, Melesse DY, Filatie TD, Zeleke ME. Variables associated to intensive care unit (ICU)-mortality among patients admitted to surgical intensive care unit in Ethiopia: a retrospective observational study. BMC anesthesiology. 2023;23(1):279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tilahun L, Molla A, Ayele FY, Nega A, Dagnaw K. Time to recovery and its predictors among critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation from intensive care unit in Ethiopia: a retrospective follow up study. BMC emergency medicine. 2022;22(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bacha AJ, Gadisa DA, Gudeta MD, Beressa TB, Negera GZ. Survival Status and Predictors of Mortality Among Patients Admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Selected Tertiary Care Hospitals in Ethiopia: A Prospective Observational Study. Clinical Medicine Insights: Pediatrics. 2023;17:11795565231169498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wotiye AB, Shimber ET, Ayele BA. Factors Associated with ICU Mortality at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (HUCSH). Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2022;32(3). doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i3.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abate SM, Basu B, Jemal B, Ahmed S, Mantefardo B, Taye T. Pattern of disease and determinants of mortality among ICU patients on mechanical ventilator in Sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis. Critical Care. 2023;27(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dendir G, Awoke N, Alemu A, Sintayhu A, Eanga S, Teshome M, et al. Factors associated with the outcome of a pediatric patients admitted to intensive care unit in resource-limited setup: cross-sectional study. Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics. 2023:71–9. doi: 10.2147/PHMT.S389404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Haftu H, Hailu T, Medhaniye A, G/tsadik T Assessment of pattern and treatment outcome of patients admitted to pediatric intensive care unit, Ayder Referral Hospital, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2015. BMC research notes. 2018;11:1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Goligher EC, Ferguson ND, Brochard LJ. Clinical challenges in mechanical ventilation. The Lancet. 2016;387(10030):1856–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30176-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pham T, Brochard LJ, Slutsky AS, editors. Mechanical ventilation: state of the art. Mayo Clinic proceedings; 2017: Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dünser MW, Baelani I, Ganbold L. A review and analysis of intensive care medicine in the least developed countries. Critical care medicine. 2006;34(4):1234–42. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000208360.70835.87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tsikala Vafea M, Zhang R, Kalligeros M, Mylona EK, Shehadeh F, Mylonakis E. Mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a systematic review. Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2021;18(5):457–71. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2021.1915764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nicholson CJ, Wooster L, Sigurslid HH, Li RH, Jiang W, Tian W, et al. Estimating risk of mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality among adult COVID-19 patients admitted to Mass General Brigham: The VICE and DICE scores. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;33. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dimbath E, Maddipati V, Stahl J, Sewell K, Domire Z, George S, et al. Implications of microscale lung damage for COVID-19 pulmonary ventilation dynamics: A narrative review. Life Sciences. 2021;274:119341. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kifle F, Boru Y, Tamiru HD, Sultan M, Walelign Y, Demelash A, et al. Intensive care in sub-Saharan Africa: a national review of the service status in Ethiopia. Anesthesia and analgesia. 2022;134(5):930. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Oami T, Imaeda T, Nakada Ta, Abe T, Takahashi N, Yamao Y, et al. Mortality analysis among sepsis patients in and out of intensive care units using the Japanese nationwide medical claims database: a study by the Japan Sepsis Alliance study group. Journal of Intensive Care. 2023;11(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Freundlich RE, Li G, Leis A, Engoren M. Factors Associated With Initiation of Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Sepsis: Retrospective Observational Study. American Journal of Critical Care. 2023;32(5):358–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yang T, Shen Y, Park JG, Schulte PJ, Hanson AC, Herasevich V, et al. Outcome after intubation for septic shock with respiratory distress and hemodynamic compromise: an observational study. BMC anesthesiology. 2021;21(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Besen BAMP Tomazini BM, Azevedo LCP. Mechanical ventilation in septic shock. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology. 2021;34(2):107–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hatchimonji JS, Dumas RP, Kaufman EJ, Scantling D, Stoecker JB, Holena DN. Questioning dogma: does a GCS of 8 require intubation? European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. 2021;47:2073–9. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01383-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tanaka A, Uchiyama A, Kitamura T, Sakaguchi R, Komukai S, Matsuyama T, et al. Association between early tracheostomy and patient outcomes in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation: a multicenter cohort study. Journal of intensive care. 2022;10(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40560-022-00610-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Jiang X, Zhu Y, Zhen S, Wang L. Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in neurocritical patients: a cohort study. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2022;36(6):1621–8. doi: 10.1007/s10877-022-00805-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Peñuelas O, del Campo-Albendea L, de Aledo ALG, Añón JM, Rodríguez-Solís C, Mancebo J, et al. Long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Annals of intensive care. 2021;11(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Respiratory Therapy Zone. 97+ Mechanical Ventilation Facts and Statistics (2024) 2024 Available from: https://www.respiratorytherapyzone.com/mechanical-ventilation-statistics/.
  • 55.Walter K. Mechanical ventilation. Jama. 2021;326(14):1452–. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Azizi BA, Munoz-Acuna R, Suleiman A, Ahrens E, Redaelli S, Tartler TM, et al. Mechanical power and 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with and without Coronavirus Disease-2019: a hospital registry study. Journal of Intensive Care. 2023;11(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Xiao K, Su L, Han B, Guo C, Feng L, Jiang Z, et al. Prognosis and weaning of elderly multiple organ dysfunction syndrome patients with invasive mechanical ventilation. Chinese Medical Journal. 2014;127(1):11–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Xiao K, Liu B, Guan W, Yan P, Song L, Wang Y, et al. Prognostic analysis of elderly patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Journal of healthcare engineering. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/6432048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Park S, Kim W-Y, Baek MS. Risk factors for mortality among mechanically ventilated patients requiring pleural drainage. International journal of general medicine. 2022:1637–46. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S349249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wolfe KS, Patel BK, MacKenzie EL, Giovanni SP, Pohlman AS, Churpek MM, et al. Impact of vasoactive medications on ICU-acquired weakness in mechanically ventilated patients. Chest. 2018;154(4):781–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bloch S, Polkey MI, Griffiths M, Kemp P. Molecular mechanisms of intensive care unit-acquired weakness. European Respiratory Journal. 2012;39(4):1000–11. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00090011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Vanhorebeek I, Latronico N, Van den Berghe G. ICU-acquired weakness. Intensive care medicine. 2020;46(4):637–53. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05944-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kahsu Gebrekidan

17 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-00386Prevalence of Mortality of Mechanically Ventilated Patients and Associative Factors in Intensive Care Units of Ethiopian Hospitals: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayenew,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article is simple and straightforward and the topic is interesting to read. The abstract summarizes the paper well and the intro clarifies the objective and rationale behind the study. The method is adequately described. The strategy behind the review and meta analysis was clearly described. Risk of bias was assessed. Variables, outcomes and associative factors were clearly shown and explained. Data were consistent with findings and limitations were transparently discussed.

I have one question, I was curious as to why the number of included studies became 22 for the final systematic review and meta-analysis? Based on what did you exclude the last 4 studies from the 26 studies? It would be great if you could clarify that.

Also, I would suggest adding legends to the figures.

Thank you for you efforts in writing this paper.

Reviewer #2: The text discusses a systematic review that aims to answer a frequently asked question, but it is limited to a specific country that the authors belong to. Although several publications have addressed this question, the review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, certain areas require clarification, as the article may not be entirely clear.

Below are some areas or points that need clarification, revision or highlighting.

The abstract section:

Establishing cause-and-effect relationships can be challenging when conducting a systematic review using observational studies. These studies merely observe and record events without manipulating variables. Therefore, it is crucial to explicitly state this limitation in the abstract's conclusion, refraining from making claims that the available evidence cannot substantiate.

Methods section

The study's inclusion criteria were carefully designed to be specific and broad enough to cover a wide range of patients. Although the mortality rates between adult and pediatric ICU patients were significantly different, age differences were not considered a distinguishing factor to ensure a comprehensive review that encompasses all relevant studies.

The study's secondary outcome was not specified or mentioned in the methods sections, making it unclear which factors the systematic review will focus on.

Result section :

For subgroup analysis, it may be helpful to consider the study type (cohort or cross-sectional) and age differences (adults and pediatrics).

Why did they choose this publication and sample size to check the cause of heterogeneity of the article?

The weight of each study was around 4. As I am not a statistician, I wonder how they get similar weights for different studies with varying populations and sample sizes.

The secondary outcome in the Results section should be rewritten. I’m not sure if the OR is adjusted or the raw OR.

Discussion section :

Most of the area is covered. However, the final conclusion needs to be rewritten. The first part concerning prevalence is acceptable, but the second part needs to be reworded.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0306277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306277.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Apr 2024

A point-by-point response to review comments to the author

Dear Editor and reviewers, we are very grateful for your constructive comments to our submitted manuscript. Your comments are of great value. We have addressed them point by point in the revised manuscript. The revisions are indicated with tracked changes in the revised manuscript. Here below is a table showing point by point responses to your comments.

Editor’s comments

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

• Thank you for your feedback. It is corrected as recommended.

Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

• Thank you for your feedback. It is corrected as recommended in the revised version

Reviewer #1

I was curious as to why the number of included studies became 22 for the final systematic review and meta-analysis? Based on what did you exclude the last 4 studies from the 26 studies? It would be great if you could clarify that.

• Thank you so much, we have explained it in the revised manuscript on page 6

I would suggest adding legends to the figures

• Thank you, figure legends are incorporated throughout the whole manuscript

Reviewer #2

Abstract

Establishing cause-and-effect relationships can be challenging when conducting a systematic review using observational studies. These studies merely observe and record events without manipulating variables. Therefore, it is crucial to explicitly state this limitation in the abstract's conclusion, refraining from making claims that the available evidence cannot substantiate.

• Thank you so much, we really appreciate your comments. It is addressed in the revised manuscript at the conclusion of the abstract section and at the conclusion section of the manuscript on pages 3 & 13

Methods

The study's inclusion criteria were carefully designed to be specific and broad enough to cover a wide range of patients. Although the mortality rates between adult and pediatric ICU patients were significantly different, age differences were not considered a distinguishing factor to ensure a comprehensive review that encompasses all relevant studies.

• Thank you in advance, actually we didn’t restrict our inclusion criteria using age category. So, we have revised the inclusion criteria to include a statement “both pediatric and adult ICU-admitted patients” to make it clearer for readers that we had considered age categories on page 5

The study's secondary outcome was not specified or mentioned in the methods sections, making it unclear which factors the systematic review will focus on.

• Dear reviewer, thank you so much. We have addressed it in the revised manuscript on page 5.

Results

For subgroup analysis, it may be helpful to consider the study type (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort and cross-sectional) and age differences (adults and pediatrics).

• Thank you so much, sub-group analysis was done using these variables in the revised manuscript on page 8

Why did they choose this publication and sample size to check the cause of heterogeneity of the article?

• Dear reviewer, thank you so much. we use sample size, JBI quality and publication year to run meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression analysis command uses only integer variables and do not allow string variables like region and study design on pages 9-10

The weight of each study was around 4. As I am not a statistician, I wonder how they get similar weights for different studies with varying populations and sample sizes.

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your concerns. Yes, of course, the weight of each study is almost close to 4. This might be because we used a random effects model. Under the random-effects model the goal is not to estimate one true effect, but to estimate the mean of a distribution of effects. Since each study provides information about a different effect size, we want to be sure that all these effect sizes are represented in the summary estimate. This means that we cannot discount a small study by giving it a very small weight. The estimate provided by that study may be imprecise, but it is information about an effect that no other study has estimated. By the same logic we cannot give too much weight to a very large study. Our goal is to estimate the mean effect in a range of studies and we do not want that overall estimate to be overly influenced by any one of them.

The secondary outcome in the Results section should be rewritten. I’m not sure if the OR is adjusted or the raw OR.

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The odds ratio is the pooled odds ratio (adjusted) after meta-analysis of significant variables from individual studies.

Discussion

Most of the area is covered. However, the final conclusion needs to be rewritten. The first part concerning prevalence is acceptable, but the second part needs to be reworded.

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, we have made revisions in the conclusion on page 13

Finally, thank you so much again!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0306277.s004.docx (17.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kahsu Gebrekidan

7 May 2024

PONE-D-24-00386R1Prevalence of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients and associated factors in intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayenew,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Suggest to rephrase the title to "Prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals and the associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

Line 85&86: "These include the presence of comorbidities, length of stay on MV, day

and time of ICU admission, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) during admission" please specify the length of stay e.g more than seven days, and the GCS score of 11 and above (for example).

line 185: please correct the spelling of heterogeneity

Please check the journal format for abbreviating the word Figure, is it "Fig 2" or "Fig. 2"

Line 247: please write in full " is not"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0306277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306277.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


8 May 2024

Response to Reviewers

Dear editor and reviewers, thank you for your constructive comments for the second time. We value your comments and we have addressed them point by point in the revised manuscript. The revisions are indicated with tracked changes in the revised manuscript. Here below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers and the editor.

Journal Requirements

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

• Dear editor, thank you for your comments regarding the referencing style. We have made revisions. All of the references are changed to Vancouver style after seeing the PLOS Submission Guidelines references section on pages 14 – 18. No retracted articles were cited.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Suggest to rephrase the title to "Prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals and the associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The title is rephrased accordingly on pages 1 & 2

Line 85&86: "These include the presence of comorbidities, length of stay on MV, day

and time of ICU admission, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) during admission" please specify the length of stay e.g more than seven days, and the GCS score of 11 and above (for example).

• Dear reviewer we value your comments, revisions are made to make these specific on page 4

line 185: please correct the spelling of heterogeneity

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, the spelling is corrected on page 8

Please check the journal format for abbreviating the word Figure, is it "Fig 2" or "Fig. 2"

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, but according to manuscript body formatting guidelines of the journal figures are labeled as “Fig” not “Fig.” (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf)

Line 247: please write in full " is not"

• Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, the word is written in its full form as “is not” on page 11

Finally, thank you in advance for your prompt and constructive feedbacks.

Sincerely,

Temesgen Ayenew (corresponding author)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0306277.s005.docx (16.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kahsu Gebrekidan

4 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-00386R2Prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals and the associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayenew,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2024 11:59PM If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

1) Please check spelling error throughout the article. I found a few, with in (should be within), and line 186 (spelling for heterogeneity), line 194 (spelling for yields).

2) Please check the grammar: I found error in line 272 and 273. based on the references (47& 48), there were two separate studies, therefore should use support (without s).

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0306277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306277.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Jun 2024

Response to Reviews

Dear Reviewer, many thanks to your constructive feedbacks. We have extensively seen the whole manuscript for spelling and grammar errors. Here below is a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Reviewer #3

1. Please check spelling error throughout the article. I found a few, with in (should be within), and line 186 (spelling for heterogeneity), line 194 (spelling for yields).

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, we have made spelling corrections to these words as well as other spelling errors throughout the manuscript. The corrections are indicated with tracked changes.

2. Please check the grammar: I found error in line 272 and 273. based on the references (47& 48), there were two separate studies, therefore should use support (without s).

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, we have made grammar checks and made corrections to these sentence and others throughout the article. The corrections are indicated with tracked changes

We really appreciate your feedback

Temesgen Ayenew,

corresponding author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Author Response to Reviews.docx

pone.0306277.s006.docx (14.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Kahsu Gebrekidan

15 Jun 2024

Prevalence of mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals and the associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-00386R3

Dear Mr. Temesgen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kahsu Gebrekidan

18 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-00386R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayenew,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0306277.s001.docx (31.7KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Logic grid and search strategy for the systematic review of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units of Ethiopian hospitals, 2023.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0306277.s002.docx (14.2KB, docx)
    S1 Data set. The minimal data set used for the values behind the statistical measures reported and the values used to build graphs.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0306277.s003.xlsx (16.2KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0306277.s004.docx (17.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0306277.s005.docx (16.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Author Response to Reviews.docx

    pone.0306277.s006.docx (14.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES