↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions to enable communication for adult patients requiring an artificial airway with or without mechanical ventilator support

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Interventions to enable communication for adult patients requiring an artificial airway with or without mechanical ventilator support
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013379.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Rose, Anna-Liisa Sutt, Andre Carlos Amaral, Dean A Fergusson, Orla M Smith, Craig M Dale

Abstract

Inability to communicate in a manner that can be understood causes extreme distress for people requiring an artificial airway and has implications for care quality and patient safety. Options for aided communication include non-vocal, speech-generating, and voice-enabling aids. To assess effectiveness of communication aids for people requiring an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube), defined as the proportion of people able to: use a non-vocal communication aid to communicate at least one symptom, need, or preference; or use a voice-enabling communication aid to phonate to produce at least one intelligible word. To assess time to communication/phonation; perceptions of communication; communication quality/success; quality of life; psychological distress; length of stay and costs; and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley version), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases, and grey literature from inception to 30 July 2020. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, controlled non-randomised parallel group, and before-after studies evaluating communication aids used in adults with an artificial airway. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We included 11 studies (1931 participants) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs). Eight evaluated non-vocal communication aids and three voice-enabling aids. Usual care was the comparator for all. For six studies, this comprised no aid; usual care in the remaining five studies comprised use of various communication aids. Overall, our confidence in results regarding effectiveness of communication interventions was very low due to imprecision, measurement heterogeneity, inconsistency in results, and most studies at high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. No non-vocal aid studies reported our primary outcome. We are uncertain of the effects of early use of a voice-enabling aid compared to routine use on ability to phonate at least one intelligible word (risk ratio (RR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 50.08; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care without aids, we are uncertain about effects of a non-vocal aid (communication board) on patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.92, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.33; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of non-vocal aids reported quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from two studies suggests early use of a voice-enabling aid may have no effect on quality of life (MD 2.27, 95% CI -7.21 to 11.75). Conceptual differences in measures of psychological distress precluded data pooling; however, intervention arm participants reported less distress suggesting there might be benefit, but our certainty in the evidence is very low. Low-certainty evidence suggest voice-enabling aids have little or no effect on ICU length of stay; we were unable to determine effects of non-vocal aids. Three studies reported different adverse events (physical restraint use, bleeding following tracheostomy, and respiratory parameters indicating respiratory decompensation). Adverse event rates were similar between arms in all three studies. However, uncertainty remains as to any harm associated with communication aids. Due to a lack of high-quality studies, imprecision, inconsistency of results, and measurement heterogeneity,  the evidence provides insufficient information to guide practice as to which communication aid is more appropriate and when to use them. Understanding effectiveness of communication aids would benefit from development of a core outcome measurement set.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 3 5%
Professor 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 31 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 35 54%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2022.
All research outputs
#892,032
of 21,724,962 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,001
of 12,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,012
of 350,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,724,962 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.