Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21394623›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2011

Deadspace ventilation: a waste of breath!

Pratik Sinha, Oliver Flower, Neil Soni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Impact of Nebulized BromAcLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Pulmonary Angiopathy in Severe COVID-19: Physiological Conclusions Derived from Ventilatory Ratio?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pratik SinhaMagill Department of Anaesthesia, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, Imperial College London, SW10 9NH, UK. p.sinha@imperial.ac.uk
Oliver Flower
Neil Soni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problems with ventilatory efficiency results in abnormal CO(2) clearance. Measuring deadspace ventilation should be the most reliable method of monitoring ventilatory efficiency in mechanically ventilated patients. Since its first description by Bohr in the late 19th century to the current use of single-breath test for volumetric CO(2), our understanding of the physiological deadspace has vastly improved. Yet indices of oxygenation seem to be the mainstay when instigating or fine-tuning ventilatory strategies. Deadspace and with it ventilatory efficiency has been largely forgotten. Recently though there has been a resurgence of interest in ventilatory efficiency. Several indices have been described that either predict deadspace or track ventilatory efficiency at the bedside. Thus making it more accessible and easy to monitor and study in large groups of patients, factors which have perhaps resulted in its under-utilisation in critical care. This review revisits the physiological concepts and methods of measuring deadspace. Described are the various clinical applications of deadspace measurements in the critically unwell. The potential reasons that have led to the variable being under-used are also examined. Finally we describe the indices currently available to track ventilatory efficiency at the bedside.

Indexed as

Respiratory Dead SpaceAlgorithmsHumansPulmonary Gas ExchangeRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory Insufficiency

Identifiers

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.