ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Methods for Determination of Individual PEEP for Intraoperative Mechanical Ventilation Using a Decremental PEEP Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive end-expiratory pressure optimisation during general anaesthesia in patients with obesity: a narrative review of respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
- [Application of electrical impedance tomography in diagnosis and monitoring of pulmonary diseases].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Review
- Clinical Applicability of Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patient-Tailored Ventilation: A Narrative Review.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure obtained with titration of a fraction of inspiratory oxygen: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Volume Incentive Spirometry Reduces Pulmonary Complications in Patients After Open Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Individual PEEP settings (PEEPIND) may improve intraoperative oxygenation and optimize lung mechanics. However, there is uncertainty concerning the optimal procedure to determine PEEPIND. In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we compared different methods for PEEPIND determination. (2) Methods: Offline analysis of decremental PEEP trials was performed and PEEPIND was retrospectively determined according to five different methods (EIT-based: RVDI method, Global Inhomogeneity Index [GI], distribution of tidal ventilation [EIT VT]; global dynamic and quasi-static compliance). (3) Results: In the 45 obese and non-obese patients included, PEEPIND using the RVDI method (PEEPRVD) was 16.3 ± 4.5 cm H2O. Determination of PEEPIND using the GI and EIT VT resulted in a mean difference of −2.4 cm H2O (95%CI: −1.2;−3.6 cm H2O, p = 0.01) and −2.3 cm H2O (95% CI: −0.9;3.7 cm H2O, p = 0.01) to PEEPRVD, respectively. PEEPIND selection according to quasi-static compliance showed the highest agreement with PEEPRVD (p = 0.67), with deviations > 4 cm H2O in 3/42 patients. PEEPRVD and PEEPIND according to dynamic compliance also showed a high level of agreement, with deviations > 4 cm H2O in 5/42 patients (p = 0.57). (4) Conclusions: High agreement of PEEPIND determined by the RVDI method and compliance-based methods suggests that, for routine clinical practice, PEEP selection based on best quasi-static or dynamic compliance is favorable.
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.