Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36150099›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2023

Rethinking Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome after COVID-19: If a "Better" Definition Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

V Marco Ranieri, Gordon Rubenfeld, Arthur S Slutsky

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06159465 (Consensus Statements on the Utility of Defining ARDS and the Utility of Past and Current Definitions of ARDS--Protocol for a Delphi Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

NCT06159465 completednot on this map

Consensus Statements on the Utility of Defining ARDS and the Utility of Past and Current Definitions of ARDS--Protocol for a Delphi Study

TypeobservationalSponsorNMC Specialty HospitalRan2023 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsRespiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult, Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure, Respiratory Failure, Phenotypic Abnormality
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Defining the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome - Are You a Splitter or a Lumper? The Choice Matters more than You Think.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. From Berlin to Global: The Need for Syndromic Definitions of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024
    Article
  14. A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quantify or Diagnose Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome by Lung Ultrasound.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Defining Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Again): A Plea for Honesty.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023
    Article
  20. Reply to Tobin.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

V Marco RanieriAlma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, IRCCS Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Bologna, Italy.
Gordon RubenfeldDepartment of Critical Care, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Arthur S SlutskyKeenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and.
IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has a somewhat controversial history, with some even questioning the need for the term "ARDS." This controversy has been amplified by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic given the marked increase in the incidence of ARDS, the relatively new treatment modalities that do not fit neatly with the Berlin definition, and the difficulty of making the diagnosis in resource-limited settings. We propose that attempts to revise the definition of ARDS should apply the framework originally developed by psychologists and social scientists and used by other medical disciplines to generate and assess definitions of clinical syndromes that do not have gold standards. This framework is structured around measures of reliability, feasibility, and validity. Future revisions of the definition of ARDS should contain the purpose, the methodology, and the framework for empirically testing any proposed definition. Attempts to revise critical illness syndromes' definitions usually hope to make them "better"; our recommendation is that future attempts use the same criteria used by other fields in defining what "better" means.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Distress SyndromeHumansIncidenceReproducibility of ResultsRespiration, Artificialacute respiratory distress syndromedefinitionframeworkvalidity

Identifiers

PMID36150099
PMCPMC9896638
OpenAlexW4296847655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.