Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37426144›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023

The accuracy of simplified calculation of mechanical power: a simulation study.

Haichong Zheng, Zhiheng Xu, Jing Zhou, Zhimin Lin, Yingzhi Wang, Weiqun He, Yuanda Xu, Xiaoqing Liu, Yimin Li, Yongbo Huang and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mechanical Power and its Components vs Driving Pressure for Predicting Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Prospective Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Haichong Zheng *Department of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiheng Xu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jing ZhouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhimin LinDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yingzhi WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Weiqun HeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yuanda XuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaoqing LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yimin LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yongbo HuangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhanqi ZhaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Ling SangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important life-saving method in the intensive care unit (ICU). A lower mechanical power (MP) is associated with a better MV strategy. However, traditional MP calculating methods are complicated, and algebraic formulas seem to be rather practical. The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy and application of different algebraic formulas calculating MP. Methods: A lung simulator, TestChest, was used to simulate pulmonary compliance variations. Using the TestChest system software, the parameters, including compliance and airway resistance, were set to simulate various acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) lungs. Ventilator was also set to volume- and pressure-controlled modes with various parameter values (respiratory rate, RR, time of inspiration, T Results: The performances of the formulas were different, although the derived MP were significantly correlated with that derived from the reference method (R Conclusions: The algebraic formulas may introduce considerably large bias under the presented lung conditions, especially in moderate to severe ARDS. Cautious is required when selecting adequate algebraic formulas to calculate MP based on the formula's premises, ventilation mode, and patients' status. In clinical practice, the trend rather than the value of MP calculated by formulas should require more attention.

Indexed as

lung simulatorMechanical power (MP)mechanical ventilation (MV)

Identifiers

PMID37426144
PMCPMC10323543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.