ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2020
The role of computer-based clinical decision support systems to deliver protective mechanical ventilation.
Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive estimation of oxygenation index in pediatric critical care: an independent retrospective observational validation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Clinical practice, decision-making, and use of clinical decision support systems in invasive mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Review
- Data Representation Structure to Support Clinical Decision-Making in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Interview Study and Preliminary Decision Support Interface Design.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Understanding clinical and biological heterogeneity to advance precision medicine in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2023Review
- Enhancing Diagnosis Through Technology: Decision Support, Artificial Intelligence, and Beyond.Critical care clinics · 2022Review
- Real-Time Effort Driven Ventilator Management: A Pilot Study.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewMechanical ventilation of adults and children with acute respiratory failure necessitates balancing lung and diaphragm protective ventilation. Computerized decision support (CDS) offers advantages in circumstances where complex decisions need to be made to weigh potentially competing risks, depending on the physiologic state of the patient. RECENT
findingsSignificant variability in how ventilator protocols are applied still exists and clinical data show that there continues to be wide variability in ventilator management. We have developed a CDS, which we are currently testing in a Phase II randomized controlled trial. The CDS is called Real-time Effort Driven ventilator management (REDvent). We will describe the rationale and methods for development of CDS for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation, using the REDvent CDS as an exemplar. SUMMARY: Goals for achieving compliance and physiologic objectives can be met when CDS instructions are simple and explicit, provide the clinician with the underlying rule set, permit acceptable reasons for declining and allow for iterative adjustments.
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.