SynthesisJournal of critical care2021
Effect of different levels of PEEP on mortality in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low versus high positive end expiratory pressure in noninvasive ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2025Trial
- Standard vs. carbone dioxide adapted kidney replacement therapy in hypercapnic ARDS patients: a randomized controlled pilot trial (BigBIC).Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Standard versus individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared by electrical impedance tomography in neurocritical care: a pilot prospective single centre study.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Quality of Life and Family Support in Critically Ill Patients following ICU Discharge.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- What Is Different in Acute Hematologic Malignancy-Associated ARDS? An Overview of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with lower PEEP.
methodsEligible studies were identified through searches of Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Wanfang database from inception up to 1 June 2021. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used in this meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for further evaluation. Higher and lower PEEP arms included 1330 patients and 1650 patients, respectively. A mean level of 9.6±3.4 cmH
conclusionsOur results suggest that a lower PEEP ventilation strategy was non-inferior to a higher PEEP ventilation strategy in ICU patients without ARDS, with no increased risk of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality. Further high-quality RCTs should be performed to confirm these findings.
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.