ArticleMedicine2018
Ventilator for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentilator has been reported to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, its efficacy is still inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis study aims to evaluate its efficacy and safety for the treatment of patients with ARDS.
methodsThe electronic databases of Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDILINE, CINAHL, allied and complementary medicine database (AMED) and 4 Chinese databases will be used to search relevant literature from their inception to the present to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ventilator for ARDS without the language restrictions. This study will only consider randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ventilator for the treatment of ARDS. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess the quality of the included RCTs studies. The primary outcomes include arterial blood gases values (recorded once a day) and ventilator settings. The secondary outcomes will include the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, quality of life, cost, death, and any other adverse events. The summary results will be performed by using the models of random-effects or fixed-effects based on the heterogeneity of the included RCTs.
resultsThe results will be disseminated to peer-reviewed journals for publication. This study does not need ethics approval, because of no individual data will be involved. The results of this study will help clinicians and health policy-makers to refer for the policy or guideline making.
conclusionThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis study may provide helpful evidence for the efficacy and safety of ventilator for ARDS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018 115409.
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.