Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20614430›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute lung injury in children and adults.

Arash Afshari, Jesper Brok, Ann Merete Møller, Jørn Wetterslev

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Low-flow ECCOHeliyon · 2024
    Article
  11. Oral IRAK4 inhibitor BAY-1834845 prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Endothelial Damage in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Nitric Oxide and Endothelial Dysfunction.Critical care clinics · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arash AfshariThe Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group & Copenhagen Trial Unit and Department of Paediatric and Obstetric Anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Afsnit 3342, rum 52, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100.
Jesper Brok
Ann Merete Møller
Jørn Wetterslev
Rigshospitalet · DKHerlev Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), defined as acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are critical conditions. AHRF results from a number of systemic conditions and is associated with high mortality and morbidity in all ages. Inhaled nitric oxide (INO) has been used to improve oxygenation but its role remains controversial.

objectivesTo systematically assess the benefits and harms of INO in critically ill patients with AHRF. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index Expanded; International Web of Science; CINAHL; LILACS; and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (up to 31st January 2010). We contacted trial authors, authors of previous reviews, and manufacturers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs, irrespective of blinding or language, that compared INO with no intervention or placebo in children or adults with AHRF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcome measure was all cause mortality. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of INO in adults and children and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. MAIN

resultsWe included 14 RCTs with a total of 1303 participants; 10 of these trials had a high risk of bias. INO showed no statistically significant effect on overall mortality (40.2% versus 38.6%) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.22; I(2) = 0) and in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses, indicating robust results. Limited data demonstrated a statistically insignificant effect of INO on duration of ventilation, ventilator-free days, and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. We found a statistically significant but transient improvement in oxygenation in the first 24 hours, expressed as the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen and the oxygenation index (MD 15.91, 95% CI 8.25 to 23.56; I(2) = 25%). However, INO appears to increase the risk of renal impairment among adults (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.16; I(2) = 0) but not the risk of bleeding or methaemoglobin or nitrogen dioxide formation. AUTHORS'

conclusionsINO cannot be recommended for patients with AHRF. INO results in a transient improvement in oxygenation but does not reduce mortality and may be harmful.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAcute Lung InjuryAdministration, InhalationAdultChildHumansHypoxiaLength of StayNitric OxideRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory InsufficiencyVasodilator AgentsNitric OxideVasodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID20614430
OpenAlexW1665983552

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.