Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35397669›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2022

[Noninvasive respiratory support and invasive ventilation in COVID‑19 : Where do we stand today?]

Ines Schroeder, Michael Irlbeck, Michael Zoller

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ines SchroederKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. ines.schroeder@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Michael IrlbeckKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Michael ZollerKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The controversy surrounding ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues. Early in the pandemic it was postulated that the high intensive care unit (ICU) mortality may have been due to too early intubation. As the pandemic progressed recommendations changed and the use of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) increased; however, this did not result in a clear reduction in ICU mortality. Furthermore, large studies on optimal ventilation in COVID-19 are lacking. This review article summarizes the pathophysiological basis, the current state of the science and the impact of different treatment modalities on the outcome. Potential factors that could undermine the benefits of noninvasive respiratory support are discussed. The authors attempt to provide guidance in answering the difficult question of when is the right time to intubate?

Indexed as

COVID-19Noninvasive VentilationRespiratory InsufficiencyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsRespiration, ArtificialAcute respiratory distress syndromeCritical careInvasive ventilationNon-invasive ventilationProne position

Identifiers

PMID35397669
PMCPMC8994638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.