ArticleCritical care (London, England)2013
Initial ventilator settings for critically ill patients.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- STOP algorithm for bedside mechanical ventilation: Standardized, evidence-based management of critically ill patients.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness in the operating room : An analysis of intraoperative ventilation framework conditions.Die Anaesthesiologie · 2024Article
- Mechanical Ventilation Practices and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in Air Medical Transport Patients: The AIR-VENT Study.Respiratory care · 2022Article
- Observational
- It's In The Bag: Tidal Volumes in Adult and Pediatric Bag Valve Masks.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians' Knowledge of Mechanical Ventilation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Respiratory induced dynamic variations of stroke volume and its surrogates as predictors of fluid responsiveness: applicability in the early stages of specific critical states.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2014Article
- Reducing the burden of acute respiratory distress syndrome: the case for early intervention and the potential role of the emergency department.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategy has been standard practice for management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) for more than a decade. Observational data, small randomized studies and two recent systematic reviews suggest that lung protective ventilation is both safe and potentially beneficial in patients who do not have ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Principles of lung-protective ventilation include: a) prevention of volutrauma (tidal volume 4 to 8 ml/kg predicted body weight with plateau pressure<30 cmH2O); b) prevention of atelectasis (positive end-expiratory pressure≥5 cmH2O, as needed recruitment maneuvers); c) adequate ventilation (respiratory rate 20 to 35 breaths per minute); and d) prevention of hyperoxia (titrate inspired oxygen concentration to peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels of 88 to 95%). Most patients tolerate lung protective mechanical ventilation well without the need for excessive sedation. Patients with a stiff chest wall may tolerate higher plateau pressure targets (approximately 35 cmH2O) while those with severe ARDS and ventilator asynchrony may require a short-term neuromuscular blockade. Given the difficulty in timely identification of patients with or at risk of ARDS and both the safety and potential benefit in patients without ARDS, lung-protective mechanical ventilation is recommended as an initial approach to mechanical ventilation in both perioperative and critical care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.