ReviewCritical care (London, England)2022
ARDS: hidden perils of an overburdened diagnosis.
Review 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 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flawed design and selection bias in critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs): the patient safety risk of the "RCT mimic".Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- Lung-protective ventilation strategy in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a critical reappraisal of current practice.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Combining OJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024Review
- Pitfalls of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Diagnosis Based on Interventions.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Redefining ARDS: a paradigm shift.Critical care (London, England) · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A diagnosis of ARDS serves as a pretext for several perilous clinical practices. Clinical trials demonstrated that tidal volume 12 ml/kg increases patient mortality, but 6 ml/kg has not proven superior to 11 ml/kg or anything in between. Present guidelines recommend 4 ml/kg, which foments severe air hunger, leading to prescription of hazardous (yet ineffective) sedatives, narcotics and paralytic agents. Inappropriate lowering of tidal volume also fosters double triggering, which promotes alveolar overdistention and lung injury. Successive panels have devoted considerable energy to developing a more precise definition of ARDS to homogenize the recruitment of patients into clinical trials. Each of three pillars of the prevailing Berlin definition is extremely flimsy and the source of confusion and unscientific practices. For doctors at the bedside, none of the revisions have enhanced patient care over that using the original 1967 description of Ashbaugh and colleagues. Bedside doctors are better advised to diagnose ARDS on the basis of pattern recognition and instead concentrate their vigilance on resolving the numerous hidden dangers that follow inevitably once a diagnosis has been made.
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.