Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 24;2020(12):CD008367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub4

Tang 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Location: adult ICU (China)
Number of centres: 1
Study period: 14 months (dates not given)
Funding source: unclear
Participants Setting: adult ICU
Inclusion criteria: all patients admitted to the ICU with receipt of mechanical ventilation of at least 48 hours were assessed for inclusion in the study.
Exclusion criteria: unclear
Number randomised: 60 (gp A: 30; gp B: 30)
Number evaluated: 60 (gp A: 30; gp B: 30)
Baseline characteristics: age: 56 (13.22); M/F: 38/22
"Age and sex comparable between groups"
Interventions Comparison: saline rinse vs saline swab
Gp A: rinse oral cavity with saline
Gp B: saline swab with saline cotton ball
Outcomes 1. VAP
2. Mortality
3. Duration of ventilation
Notes Sample size calculation: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No details provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Blinding not mentioned and not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Assessor blinding not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk All randomised participants included in analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Planned outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk The authors did not give a detailed description about the intervention methods and frequency of oral care in each group.