ReviewThe clinical respiratory journal2022
A structured narrative review of clinical and experimental studies of the use of different positive end-expiratory pressure levels during thoracic surgery.
Review in The clinical respiratory journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effect of dynamic lung compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure on postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Association of intraoperative end-tidal CO₂ levels with postoperative pulmonary complications in thoracoscopic lobectomy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Mechanical Protective Ventilation: New Paradigms in Thoracic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A structured narrative review of clinical and experimental studies of the use of different positive end-expiratory pressure levels during thoracic surgery.The clinical respiratory journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to present a review on the general effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels during thoracic surgery by qualitatively categorizing the effects into detrimental, beneficial, and inconclusive. DATA SOURCE: Literature search of Pubmed, CNKI, and Wanfang was made to find relative articles about PEEP levels during thoracic surgery. We used the following keywords as one-lung ventilation, PEEP, and thoracic surgery.
resultsWe divide the non-individualized PEEP value into five grades, that is, less than 5, 5, 5-10, 10, and more than 10 cmH
conclusionsAvailable data suggest that PEEP might play an important role in one-lung ventilation, the understanding of which will help in exploring a simple and economical method to set the appropriate PEEP level.
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.