Do we need ARDS?

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. ARDS: hidden perils of an overburdened diagnosis.Critical care (London, England) · 2022
   Review
2. Etiology-associated heterogeneity in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021
   Article
3. We've never seen a patient with ARDS!Intensive care medicine · 2020
   Article
4. Does Making a Diagnosis of ARDS in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Matter?Chest · 2020
   Article
5. Clinical features and outcome of patients with acute respiratory failure revealing anti-synthetase or anti-MDA-5 dermato-pulmonary syndrome: a French multicenter retrospective study.Annals of intensive care · 2018
   Article
6. The Berlin definition met our needs: not sure.Intensive care medicine · 2016
   Article
7. Personalized medicine for ARDS: the 2035 research agenda.Intensive care medicine · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Acute respiratory distress syndrome mimickers lacking common risk factors of the Berlin definition.2016

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as