ArticleFrontiers in physiology2020
Benefit of Physiologically Variable Over Pressure-Controlled Ventilation in a Model of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variable pressure support ventilation vs. biphasic positive airway pressure/airway pressure release ventilation in experimental acute respiratory failure.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Novel ventilation techniques in children.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe advantages of physiologically variable ventilation (PVV) based on a spontaneous breathing pattern have been demonstrated in several respiratory conditions. However, its potential benefits in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have not yet been characterized. We used an experimental model of COPD to compare respiratory function outcomes after 6 h of PVV versus conventional pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). MATERIALS AND
methodsRabbits received nebulized elastase and lipopolysaccharide throughout 4 weeks. After 30 days, animals were anesthetized, tracheotomized, and randomized to receive 6 h of physiologically variable (
resultsAfter 6 h of ventilation, animals receiving variable ventilation demonstrated significantly higher oxygenation index (PaO
conclusionPVV applied to a model of COPD improved oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, lung aeration, and intrapulmonary shunt fraction compared to conventional ventilation. A reduction in alveolar derecruitment and lung tissue stress leading to better aeration and gas exchange may explain the benefits of PVV.
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.