Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14974056›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

High-frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

H Wunsch, J Mapstone

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. The design of future pediatric mechanical ventilation trials for acute lung injury.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2010
    Review
  7. Acute respiratory distress syndrome.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H WunschColumbia University Department of Medicine, Columbia University, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, 622 West 168th St, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Mapstone
Columbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-frequency ventilation is often used to treat patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established.

objectivesThe objective of this review is to examine the effect of high-frequency ventilation compared with conventional ventilation as a therapy for ALI or ARDS in children (1 to 17 years old) and adults in order to quantify its effect on patient outcome (mortality, morbidity and other relevant outcomes). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to October Week 5, 2002), EMBASE (1980 to Week 51, 2002), World Wide Web (www.controlled-trials.com, ARDS clinical network), and used Cited Reference Search (Web of Science 1988 to 2002, for specific reference lists of articles). We also contacted authors from each included trial, as well as manufacturers of high-frequency ventilators and other researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled clinical trials of children and adults comparing treatment using high-frequency ventilation with conventional ventilation for patients diagnosed with ALI or ARDS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsTwo trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. One trial recruited children (including some children less than one year old) (n = 58) and the other recruited adults (n = 148). Both trials used a high-frequency oscillatory ventilator as the intervention and included variable use of lung-volume recruitment strategies. The intervention groups showed a trend towards lower 30 day mortality (children relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.62; adults RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.03), although neither study showed a statistically significant difference. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups for 'Total length of ventilator days' (WMD) -2.00, 95% CI -18.36 to 14.36; and WMD 2.00, 95% CI -6.55 to 10.55 for the child and adult trials respectively). The studies used only proxies to measure long-term quality of life. There was a statistically significant reduction in the risk of requiring supplemental oxygen amongst survivors at 30 days in the paediatric study (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is not enough evidence to conclude whether high-frequency ventilation reduces mortality or long-term morbidity in patients with ALI or ARDS; further trials are needed.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolHigh-Frequency VentilationHumansInfantRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID14974056
OpenAlexW4248987096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.