Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2020
Automated vs. conventional ventilation in the ICU: a randomized controlled crossover trial comparing blood oxygen saturation during daily nursing procedures (I-NURSING).
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Closed-loop Versus Conventional Ventilation Mode During Mobilization Period in Critical Care Patients : a Prospective Randomized Crossover Study
A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fully Automated Closed-loop Ventilator Versus Conventional Open-loop Ventilator in Ventilated Patients in the Emergency Department
Registry for Automated Mechanical VEntilation in Adults
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology-Enhanced Strategies to Optimize Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Closed-loop oxygen control for critically ill patients--A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of decision support to wean patients from mechanical ventilation in intensive care: a prospective study reporting clinical and physiological outcomes.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Trial
- Effects of Automated Versus Conventional Ventilation on Quality of Oxygenation-A Substudy of a Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during hospitalisation: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypoxia is common during daily nursing procedures (DNPs) routinely performed on mechanically ventilated patients. The impact of automated ventilation on the incidence and severity of blood oxygen desaturation during DNPs remains unknown.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled crossover trial was carried out in a French intensive care unit to compare blood oxygen pulse saturation (SpO
resultsOf the 265 included patients, 93% had been admitted for a medical pathology, the majority for acute respiratory failure (52%). There was no difference between the two periods in terms of DNP duration, sedation requirements, or ventilation parameters, but patients had more spontaneous breaths and lower peak airway pressures during the AV period (p < 0.001). The percentage of time spent with SpO
conclusionAV appears to reduce the incidence and severity of blood oxygen desaturation during daily nursing procedures (DNPs) in comparison to CV.
trial registrationThis study was registered in clinical-trial.gov ( NCT03176329 ) in June 2017.
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.