SynthesisJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Differential Prognostic Analysis of Higher and Lower PEEP in ARDS Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: Differential Prognostic Analysis of Higher and Lower PEEP in ARDS Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Article
- Application of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Caused byFrontiers in physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-10-04Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) refers to the positive pressure in the respiratory tract at the end of the exhalation when we use a ventilator. The differences of higher PEEP and lower PEEP on clinical outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients are less well known. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of all randomized control trials (RCTs) was conducted using PubMed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus, WHO clinical trial registry, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of higher and lower PEEP in ARDS patients. Results: Eleven studies were included in the final analysis. In the higher PEEP group, the hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, and ICU mortality showed no significantly lower risk compared to the lower PEEP group (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.05, Conclusions: There is no significant difference of the hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, and ICU mortality between higher and lower PEEP in ARDS patients.
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.