Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37527894›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Methods for determination of optimal positive end-expiratory pressure: a protocol for a scoping review.

Stefan Edginton, Natalia Kruger, Henry Tom Stelfox, Laurent Brochard, Danny J Zuege, Jonathan Gaudet, Kevin J Solverson, Helen Lee Robertson, Kirsten M Fiest, Daniel J Niven and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Stefan EdgintonCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6243-4259
Natalia KrugerCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Henry Tom StelfoxCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Laurent BrochardInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Danny J ZuegeCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jonathan GaudetCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kevin J SolversonCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Helen Lee RobertsonCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kirsten M FiestCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Daniel J NivenCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sean M BagshawCritical Care Medicine, University of Alberta Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Ken Kuljit S ParharCritical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada ken.parhar@albertahealthservices.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1113-0287

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTitrated application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is an important part of any mechanical ventilation strategy. However, the method by which the optimal PEEP is determined and titrated varies widely. Methods for determining optimal PEEP have been assessed using a variety of different study designs and patient populations. We will conduct a scoping review to systematically identify all methods for determining optimal PEEP, and to identify the patient populations, outcomes measured and study designs used for each method. The goal will be to identify gaps in the optimal PEEP literature and identify areas where there may be an opportunity to further systematically synthesise and meta-analyse existing literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using scoping review methodology, we will generate a comprehensive search strategy based on inclusion and exclusion criteria generated using the population, concept, context framework. Five different databases will be searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus). Three investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts, and two investigators will independently complete full-text review and data extraction. Included citations will be categorised in terms of PEEP method, study design, patient population and outcomes measured. The methods for PEEP titration will be described in detail, including strengths and limitations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given this is a synthesis of existing literature, ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated to stakeholders via presentation at local, regional and national levels, as well as publication in a high-impact critical care journal. There is also the potential to impact local clinical care protocols and inform broader clinical practice guidelines undertaken by societies.

Indexed as

Positive-Pressure RespirationRespiration, ArtificialBibliometricsCritical CareHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicAdult anaesthesiaCLINICAL PHYSIOLOGYEPIDEMIOLOGYINTENSIVE & CRITICAL CARE

Identifiers

PMID37527894
PMCPMC10401233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.