Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24919591›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during anaesthesia for prevention of mortality and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Fabiano T Barbosa, Aldemar A Castro, Célio F de Sousa-Rodrigues

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT05222893 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Optimization of Positive End-expiratory Pressure During Laparoscopic Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaraganda Medical UniversityRan2021 to 2024Enrolled60ConditionsPost-Op Complication, Ventilator-Induced Lung InjuryArmsRespiratory monitoring, Capnography, Arterial blood gas, Esophageal pressure
NCT06481124 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Positive End-expiratory Pressure Titration During Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery in the Trendelenburg Position Based on Ventilation and Perfusion Measured by Electrical Impedance Tomography: the CP-EIT Observational Study

TypeobservationalSponsorI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled50ConditionsPneumoperitoneum, Trendelenburg Position, Laparoscopic SurgeryArmselectrical impedance tomography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fabiano T BarbosaDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Hospital Geral do Estado Professor Osvaldo Brandão Vilela, Siqueira Campos Avenue, 2095, Trapiche da Barra, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, 57010000.
Aldemar A Castro
Célio F de Sousa-Rodrigues

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral anaesthesia causes atelectasis, which can lead to impaired respiratory function. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is a mechanical manoeuvre that increases functional residual capacity (FRC) and prevents collapse of the airways, thereby reducing atelectasis. It is not known whether intraoperative PEEP alters the risks of postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications. This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2013.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of intraoperative PEEP in terms of postoperative mortality and pulmonary outcomes in all adult surgical patients. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 10, part of The Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (via Ovid) (1980 to October 2013), CINAHL (via EBSCOhost) (1982 to October 2013), ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2013) and LILACS (via BIREME interface) (1982 to October 2010). The original search was performed in January 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of PEEP versus no PEEP during general anaesthesia on postoperative mortality and postoperative respiratory complications in adults, 16 years of age and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected papers, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information, when necessary. We calculated the number of additional participants needed (information size) to make reliable conclusions. MAIN

resultsThis updated review includes two new randomized trials. In total, 10 randomized trials with 432 participants and four comparisons are included in this review. One trial had a low risk of bias. No differences were demonstrated in mortality, with risk ratio (RR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 4.59; P value 0.97; 268 participants, six trials, very low quality of evidence (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)), and in pneumonia, with RR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.11 to 1.39; P value 0.15; 120 participants, three trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). Statistically significant results included the following: The PEEP group had higher arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) on day one postoperatively, with a mean difference of 22.98 (95% CI 4.40 to 41.55; P value 0.02; 80 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)), and postoperative atelectasis (defined as an area of collapsed lung, quantified by computerized tomography scan) was less in the PEEP group (standard mean difference -1.2, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.79; P value 0.00001; 88 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). No adverse events were reported in the three trials that adequately measured these outcomes (barotrauma and cardiac complications). Using information size calculations, we estimated that a further 21,200 participants would have to be randomly assigned to allow a reliable conclusion about PEEP and mortality. AUTHORS'

conclusionsEvidence is currently insufficient to permit conclusions about whether intraoperative PEEP alters risks of postoperative mortality and respiratory complications among undifferentiated surgical patients.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthesia, GeneralHumansPneumoniaPositive-Pressure RespirationPostoperative ComplicationsPulmonary AtelectasisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID24919591
PMCPMC11033874
OpenAlexW1539113935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.