ReviewCurrent anesthesiology reports2021
Spontaneous Versus Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Review in Current anesthesiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Early Spontaneous Breathing in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Spontaneous Versus Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Feasibility Study and Pilot Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Patient characteristics, management and outcomes in a Nordic subset of the "large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure" (LUNG SAFE) study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Observational
- Brain-lung interactions and mechanical ventilation in patients with isolated brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review clinical evidence on whether or not to allow mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to breathe spontaneously. RECENT
findingsObservational data (LUNG SAFE study) indicate that mechanical ventilation allowing for spontaneous breathing (SB) is associated with more ventilator-free days and a shorter stay in the intensive care unit without any effect on hospital mortality. A paediatric trial, comparing airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and low-tidal volume ventilation, showed an increase in mortality in the APRV group. Conversely, in an unpublished trial comparing SB and controlled ventilation (NCT01862016), the authors concluded that SB is feasible but did not improve outcomes in ARDS patients. SUMMARY: A paucity of clinical trial data continues to prevent firm guidance on if or when to allow SB during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. No published large randomised controlled trial exists to inform practice about the benefits and harms of either mode.
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.