Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333766›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2022

Longitudinal phenotypes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multi-database study.

Hui Chen, Qian Yu, Jianfeng Xie, Songqiao Liu, Chun Pan, Ling Liu, Yingzi Huang, Fengmei Guo, Haibo Qiu, Yi Yang

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hui Chen *Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Qian Yu *Department of Radiology, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Jianfeng XieJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Songqiao LiuJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Chun PanJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Ling LiuJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Yingzi HuangJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Fengmei GuoJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Haibo QiuJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China.
Yi YangJiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, No. 87, Dingjiaqiao Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210009, People's Republic of China. yiyiyang2004@163.com.
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

The Key Research and Development Plan of Jiangsu Province BE2021734Yilu "Gexin"-Fluid Therapy Research Fund Project YLGX-ZZ-2020002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreviously identified phenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been limited by a disregard for temporal dynamics. We aimed to identify longitudinal phenotypes in ARDS to test the prognostic and predictive enrichment of longitudinal phenotypes, and to develop simplified models for phenotype identification.

methodsWe conducted a multi-database study based on the Chinese Database in Intensive Care (CDIC) and four ARDS randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We employed latent class analysis (LCA) to identify longitudinal phenotypes using 24-hourly data from the first four days of invasive ventilation. We used the Cox regression model to explore the association between time-varying respiratory parameters and 28-day mortality across phenotypes. Phenotypes were validated in four RCTs, and the heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) was investigated. We also constructed two multinomial logistical regression analyses to develop the probabilistic models.

findingsA total of 605 ARDS patients in CDIC were enrolled. The three-class LCA model was identified and had the optimal fit, as follows: Class 1 (n = 400, 66.1% of the cohort) was the largest phenotype over all study days, and had fewer abnormal values, less organ dysfunction and the lowest 28-day mortality rate (30.5%). Class 2 (n = 102, 16.9% of the cohort) was characterized by pulmonary mechanical dysfunction and had the highest proportion of poorly aerated lung volume, the 28-day mortality rate was 47.1%. Class 3 (n = 103, 17% of the cohort) was correlated with extra-pulmonary dysfunction and had the highest 28-day mortality rate (56.3%). Time-varying mechanical power was more significantly associated with 28-day mortality in Class 2 patients compared to other phenotypes. Similar phenotypes were identified in four RCTs. A significant HTE between phenotypes and treatment strategies was observed in the ALVEOLI (high PEEP vs. low PEEP) and the FACTT trials (conservative vs. liberal fluid management). Two parsimonious probabilistic models were constructed to identify longitudinal phenotypes.

interpretationWe identified and validated three novel longitudinal phenotypes for ARDS patients, with both prognostic and predictive enrichment. The phenotypes of ARDS can be accurately identified with simple classifier models, except for Class 3.

Indexed as

Respiratory Distress SyndromeCritical CareHumansLatent Class AnalysisPhenotypePrognosis28-day mortalityAcute respiratory distress syndromeHeterogeneity of treatment effectLongitudinal phenotypes

Identifiers

PMID36333766
PMCPMC9635207
OpenAlexW4308340360

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.