ArticleCritical care explorations2021
Development and Content Validation of a Multidisciplinary Standardized Management Pathway for Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding ICU Nursing Knowledge, Perceived Barriers, and Facilitators of Sepsis Recognition and Management: A Cross-Sectional Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Article
- Designing a Behaviour Change Wheel guided implementation strategy for a hypoxaemic respiratory failure and ARDS care pathway that targets barriers.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the identification and treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome with protection, paralysis, and proning: A type-1 hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTreatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex. Evidence-based therapies that can improve survival and guidelines advocating their use exist; however, implementation is inconsistent. Our objective was to develop and validate an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed standardized management pathway for hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome to improve adherence to best practice.
designA standardized management pathway was developed using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multidisciplinary group of ICU clinicians. The proposed pathway was externally validated with a survey involving multidisciplinary stakeholders and clinicians.
settingIn-person meeting and web-based surveys of ICU clinicians from 17 adult ICUs in the province of Alberta, Canada.
interventionNot applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe consensus panel was comprised of 30 ICU clinicians (4 nurses, 10 respiratory therapists, 15 intensivists, 1 nurse practitioner; median years of practice 17 [interquartile range, 13-21]). Ninety-one components were serially rated and revised over two rounds of online and one in-person review. The final pathway included 46 elements. For the validation survey, 692 responses (including 59% nurses, 33% respiratory therapists, 7% intensivists and 1% nurse practitioners) were received. Agreement of greater than 75% was achieved on 43 of 46 pathway elements.
conclusionsA 46-element evidence-informed hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome standardized management pathway was developed and demonstrated to have content validity.
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.