Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37280079›Full record

ArticleRespiratory care2023

Time to Extubation Among ARDS Subjects With and Without COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Gregory D Burns, Justin S Phillips, Richard H Kallet, David V Glidden, Carolyn M Hendrickson, John Z Metcalfe

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory D BurnsRespiratory Care Division, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California. Gregory.burns@ucsf.edu.
Justin S PhillipsRespiratory Care Division, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California.
Richard H KalletDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco at San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California.
David V GliddenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Carolyn M HendricksonDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California.
John Z MetcalfeDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California.
San Francisco General Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPneumonia from COVID-19 that results in ARDS may require invasive mechanical ventilation. This retrospective study assessed the characteristics and outcomes of subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS versus ARDS (non-COVID) during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether mechanical ventilation duration differed between these cohorts and identify other potential contributory factors.

methodsWe retrospectively identified 73 subjects admitted between March 1 and August 12, 2020, with either COVID-19-associated ARDS (37) or ARDS (36) who were managed with the lung protective ventilator protocol and required >48 h of mechanical ventilation. Exclusion criteria were the following: <18 years old or the patient required tracheostomy or interfacility transfer. Demographic and baseline clinical data were collected at ARDS onset (ARDS day 0), with subsequent data collected on ARDS days 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21. Comparisons were made by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (continuous variables) and chi-square test (categorical variables) stratified by COVID-19 status. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed the cause-specific hazard ratio for extubation.

resultsThe median (interquartile range) mechanical ventilation duration among the subjects who survived to extubation was longer in those with COVID-19-ARDS versus the subjects with non-COVID ARDS: 10 (6-20) d versus 4 (2-8) d;

conclusionsMechanical ventilation duration was longer in subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS compared with the subjects with non-COVID ARDS, which may be explained by a lower rate of improvement in oxygenation status.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Distress SyndromeAdolescentAirway ExtubationHumansPandemicsRespiration, ArtificialRetrospective Studiesacute respiratory distress syndromeCorona Virus Disease 2019Extubationweaning

Identifiers

PMID37280079
PMCPMC10506654
OpenAlexW4379517397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.