Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26261769›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2015

Brain-lung crosstalk: Implications for neurocritical care patients.

Ségolène Mrozek, Jean-Michel Constantin, Thomas Geeraerts

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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.

Ségolène MrozekSégolène Mrozek, Thomas Geeraerts, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Equipe d'accueil "Modélisation de l'agression tissulaire et nociceptive", University Hospital of Toulouse, 31000 Toulouse, France.
Jean-Michel ConstantinSégolène Mrozek, Thomas Geeraerts, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Equipe d'accueil "Modélisation de l'agression tissulaire et nociceptive", University Hospital of Toulouse, 31000 Toulouse, France.
Thomas GeeraertsSégolène Mrozek, Thomas Geeraerts, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Equipe d'accueil "Modélisation de l'agression tissulaire et nociceptive", University Hospital of Toulouse, 31000 Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major pulmonary disorders may occur after brain injuries as ventilator-associated pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome or neurogenic pulmonary edema. They are key points for the management of brain-injured patients because respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation seem to be a risk factor for increased mortality, poor neurological outcome and longer intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. Brain and lung strongly interact via complex pathways from the brain to the lung but also from the lung to the brain. Several hypotheses have been proposed with a particular interest for the recently described "double hit" model. Ventilator setting in brain-injured patients with lung injuries has been poorly studied and intensivists are often fearful to use some parts of protective ventilation in patients with brain injury. This review aims to describe the epidemiology and pathophysiology of lung injuries in brain-injured patients, but also the impact of different modalities of mechanical ventilation on the brain in the context of acute brain injury.

Indexed as

Brain injuryBrain-lung crosstalkDouble hit modelLung injuryProtective ventilation

Identifiers

PMID26261769
PMCPMC4524814

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.