ArticleCritical care (London, England)2018
High-frequency oscillatory ventilation guided by transpulmonary pressure in acute respiratory syndrome: an experimental study in pigs.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2018. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preterm infants on high-frequency oscillatory ventilation: electrical impedance tomography during lung recruitment.Pediatric research · 2025Observational
- The Physiological Basis of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Current Evidence in Adults and Children: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- Efficacy comparison of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with continuous nasal positive airway pressure in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome treatment.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Optimal mean airway pressure during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in an experimental model of acute respiratory distress syndrome: EIT-based method.Annals of intensive care · 2020Article
- Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome.Annals of intensive care · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent clinical studies have not shown an overall benefit of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), possibly due to injurious or non-individualized HFOV settings. We compared conventional HFOV (HFOV
methodsARDS was induced in eight pigs by intrabronchial installation of hydrochloric acid (0.1 N, pH 1.1; 2.5 ml/kg body weight). The animals were initially ventilated in volume-controlled mode with low tidal volumes (6 ml kg
resultsCardiac output, stroke volume, mean arterial pressure and intrathoracic blood volume index were significantly higher during HFOV P
conclusionHFOV P
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.