Observational studyAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2021
Clinical features and respiratory pathophysiology of COVID-19 patients ventilated in the prone position: a cohort study.
Observational study in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of the Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy journal: What have we learned?Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2025Article
- Adverse Events during Prone Positioning of Patients with COVID-19 during a Surge in Hospitalizations-Results of an Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are few studies that have investigated the response to the prone position in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We describe the characteristics and outcomes of those patients in a tertiary hospital in Spain. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is an observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was to describe the respiratory pathophysio-logy and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated by mechanical ventilation in the prone position.
resultsOf 84 patients mechanically ventilated in the prone position, 19 (22%) were successfully extubated and 43 (51%) were discharged from the ICU. The duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay were 11 days (IQR 8-16) and 15 days (IQR 9-25), respectively. On admission to ICU, 61% patients had a moderate ARDS according to the Berlin criteria. 76% had 4 lung quadrants affected. After intubation, the median PaO2/FiO2 was 105 (IQR 76-138), ventilatory ratio was 1.48 (IQR 1.16-1.88), and compliance was 33 mL cm H 2 O-1 (IQR 25-41). The median number of cycles in the prone position was 2 (1-3), with a median of total hours in the prone position of 76 (IQR 64-111).72 h after the first prone position cycle the median PaO2/FiO2 increase was up to 193 (IQR 152-251), but the compliance was similar to the basal level (34 mL cm H 2 O-1 [IQR 26-43]). However, the percentage of patients with normal compliance (> 50 mL cm H 2 O-1) increased with the prone position from 15% (n = 13) to 32% (n = 27) after 72 h.
conclusionsIn our study, the COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure presented respiratory mechanics, gas exchange parameters, and a response to prone ventilation similar to those observed in other causes of ARDS.
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.