ReviewCureus2022
Efficacy of Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Ventilation Strategy in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- Transpulmonary Pressure as a Predictor of Successful Lung Recruitment: Reanalysis of a Multicenter International Randomized Clinical Trial.Respiratory care · 2025Trial
- Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2024Article
- Reactive Oxygen Species and Strategies for Antioxidant Intervention in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the pooled effects of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) failed to show significantly reduced mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Some new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported and an updated systematic review is needed to evaluate the use of higher PEEP in patients with ARDS. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi, ICTRP, the National Institute of Health Clinical Trials Register, and the reference list of recent guidelines. We included RCTs to compare the higher PEEP ventilation strategy with the lower strategy in patients with ARDS. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were 28-day mortality. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Among the 6530 screened records, 16 randomized trials involving 4150 patients were included in our meta-analysis. When comparing higher PEEP versus lower PEEP, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for 28-day mortality was 0.85 (15 studies, n=4108, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00, I
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.