Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36329482›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2022

Early intubation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hyeon-Jeong Lee, Joohae Kim, Miyoung Choi, Won-Il Choi, Joonsung Joh, Jungeun Park, Junghyun Kim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hyeon-Jeong Lee *Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joohae Kim *Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Miyoung ChoiDivision of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Won-Il ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Joonsung JohDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jungeun ParkDivision of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Junghyun KimDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. jhkimd29@gmail.com.

Funding

National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency NA22-008National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency NP21-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence regarding the timing of the application of mechanical ventilation among patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is insufficient. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early intubation compared to late intubation in patients with severe and critical COVID-19.

methodsFor this study, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases as well as one Korean domestic database on July 15, 2021. We updated the search monthly from September 10, 2021 to February 10, 2022. Studies that compared early intubation with late intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated as measures of effect using the random-effects model for the pooled estimates of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), hospital LOS, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the definition of early intubation and the index time. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized studies 2.0.

resultsOf the 1523 records identified, 12 cohort studies, involving 2843 patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (8 studies, n = 795; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10, P = 0.32, I

conclusionThis study showed no significant difference in both primary and secondary outcomes between the early intubation and late intubation groups. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 16 February, 2022 (registration number CRD42022311122).

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansIntensive Care UnitsIntubation, IntratrachealLength of StayRespiration, ArtificialCOVID-19Early intubationMechanical ventilationMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID36329482
PMCPMC9631590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.