ReviewTranslational pediatrics2021
A narrative review of advanced ventilator modes in the pediatric intensive care unit.
Review in Translational pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in neonatal and pediatric critical care-A scoping review of randomized controlled trials.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
- High-Flow Oscillatory Ventilation: A Possible Therapeutic Option for Pediatric Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases.Pediatric reports · 2024Review
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Mechanical Ventilation, and Inhalation Injury in Burn Patients.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2023Review
- High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation in Viral Bronchiolitis.Respiratory care · 2022Article
- The Physiological Basis of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Current Evidence in Adults and Children: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- Translating scientific evidence into the art of caring for critically ill children across the globe.Translational pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory failure is a common reason for pediatric intensive care unit admission. The vast majority of children requiring mechanical ventilation can be supported with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) but certain cases with refractory hypoxemia or hypercapnia may require more advanced modes of ventilation. This paper discusses what we have learned about the use of advanced ventilator modes [e.g., high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV), high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA)] from clinical, animal, and bench studies. The evidence supporting advanced ventilator modes is weak and consists of largely of single center case series, although a few RCTs have been performed. Animal and bench models illustrate the complexities of different modes and the challenges of applying these clinically. Some modes are proprietary to certain ventilators, are expensive, or may only be available at well-resourced centers. Future efforts should include large, multicenter observational, interventional, or adaptive design trials of different rescue modes (e.g., PROSpect trial), evaluate their use during ECMO, and should incorporate assessments through volumetric capnography, electric impedance tomography, and transpulmonary pressure measurements, along with precise reporting of ventilator parameters and physiologic variables.
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.