ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
On the complexity of scoring acute respiratory distress syndrome: do not forget hemodynamics!
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining OJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024Review
- Improved understanding of the respiratory drive pathophysiology could lead to earlier spontaneous breathing in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2023Article
- Building on the Shoulders of Giants: Is the use of Early Spontaneous Ventilation in the Setting of Severe Diffuse Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Actually Heretical?Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2018Review
- Hypothesis: Fever control, a niche for alpha-2 agonists in the setting of septic shock and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome?Temperature (Austin, Tex.) · 2018Review
- The APPS: an outcome score for the acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains associated with a poor outcome despite recent major therapeutic advances. Forecasting the outcome of patients suffering from such a syndrome is of a crucial interest and many scores have been proposed, all suffering from limits responsible for important discrepancies. Authors try to elaborate simple, routine and reliable scores but most of them do not consider hemodynamics yet acknowledged as a major determinant of outcome. This article aims at reminding the approach of scoring in ARDS and at deeply describing the most recently published one in order to highlight their main pitfall, which is to forget the hemodynamics.
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.