Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21156085›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2010

Open the lung with high-frequency oscillation ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation? It may not matter!

Vito Fanelli, Sangeeta Mehta

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewComment
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vito FanelliThe Keenan Research Centre of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1W8.
Sangeeta Mehta
St. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 'open lung' approach has been proposed as a reasonable ventilation strategy to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and possibly reduce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)-related mortality. However, several randomized clinical trials have failed to show any significant clinical benefit of a ventilation strategy applying higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and low tidal volume.Dispute regarding the optimal levels of PEEP in ARDS patients represents the substrate for a translational research effort from the bedside to the bench, driving animal studies aimed at elucidating which ventilation strategies reduce biotrauma, considered one of the most important driving forces of VILI and ARDS-related multi-organ failure and mortality. Inappropriate values for end-inspiratory or end-expiratory pressure have clear potential to damage a lung predisposed to VILI. In the heterogeneous environment of the ARDS 'baby lung', lung recruitment and the avoidance of tidal overstretch with high-frequency oscillation ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation, guided by respiratory mechanics, appears to reduce VILI.

Indexed as

AnimalsHigh-Frequency VentilationLungLung InjuryMalePositive-Pressure RespirationRespiratory Mechanics

Identifiers

PMID21156085
PMCPMC3220010
OpenAlexW2144914318

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.