Fowler's Position and Pneumonia Prevention: Article Reviews
This paper examines two studies relevant to a PICOT question about whether positioning mechanically ventilated patients in Fowler's position on medical-surgical units reduces the risk of pneumonia. The first source, a Level 4 systematic review by Almirall et al. (2017), identifies confirmed and inconclusive risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia across 29 observational studies. The second, a Level 3 single quantitative study by Kubota, Endo, and Kubota (2013), examines the autonomic cardiovascular and respiratory effects of upper torso inclination in healthy subjects. Together, the two sources provide partial support for the hypothesis that Fowler's positioning benefits respiratory health, while highlighting limitations in study design and population representativeness.
- Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice and Study Selection: Frames evidence hierarchy and clinical question
- Systematic Review of Pneumonia Risk Factors: Almirall et al. review of CAP risk factors
- Single Quantitative Study on Fowler's Position: Kubota study on torso inclination and autonomic response
- Limitations of the Kubota et al. Study: Small sample, healthy subjects, no controls
- Implications for Clinical Practice and the PICOT Question: Both sources partially support Fowler's positioning hypothesis
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly situates each source within a recognized evidence hierarchy, distinguishing between Level 3 and Level 4 evidence and explaining why those distinctions matter for clinical practice.
- It connects both sources back to a concrete clinical question (the PICOT hypothesis), keeping the analysis purposeful and applied rather than purely descriptive.
- Limitations of each study are acknowledged honestly, including the absence of control subjects and the healthy-subject population, which demonstrates critical appraisal skill.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates evidence-level appraisal, a core nursing research skill in which sources are evaluated not only for their findings but for the methodological rigor that determines how much weight those findings should carry in clinical decision-making.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining the evidence hierarchy and framing the clinical question, then devotes separate sections to each source — summarizing design, findings, and quality level. It closes by synthesizing how both sources, despite their limitations, collectively support the PICOT hypothesis and identify variables worth controlling in future research. References follow APA format.
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice and Study Selection
According to standards of evidence, the highest level of quality (Level 1) is that of a systematic review involving randomized controls to eliminate bias. At a lower level of quality (Level 3), systematic reviews of lower-quality studies may employ different types of methods. In addressing the clinical question of whether Fowler's positioning of mechanically ventilated patients reduces the risk of pneumonia on medical-surgical units, two sources were consulted: a systematic review of general pneumonia risk factors and a single quantitative study on postural effects.
Systematic Review of Pneumonia Risk Factors
The first source consulted was a Level 4 systematic review conducted by Almirall et al. (2017) examining risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The review synthesized 29 observational studies — including cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies — to assess risk factors for adult hospitalized patients developing pneumonia. Each individual study focused on different, albeit related, risk factors.
The confirmed risk factors identified in the Almirall et al. (2017) review included advanced age, smoking, a history of environmental exposure to harmful toxins, malnutrition, a history of previous CAP, and respiratory complaints such as bronchitis, COPD, and asthma. Additional exacerbating factors included poor dental health and treatment with certain classes of pharmaceuticals, such as steroids, gastric-acid suppressants, and immunosuppressive drugs. These findings are useful for identifying the highest-risk patients and determining which patients might benefit most from preventative repositioning. Other variables examined — including gender, weight, alcohol use, vaccination status, and chronic conditions such as diabetes and cancer — did not yield conclusive evidence.
References
Almirall, J., Serra-Prat, M., Bolíbar, I., & Balasso, V. (2017). Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults: A systematic review of observational studies. Respiration, 94, 299–311.
Kubota, S., Endo, Y., & Kubota, M. (2013). Effect of upper torso inclination in Fowler's position on autonomic cardiovascular regulation. The Journal of Physiological Sciences, 63(5), 369–376. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751277/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.