ArticleBMJ open2023
High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure setting in patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: study protocol for the multicentre, randomised ExPress SAVER Trial.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Positive End-Expiratory Pressure at Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Initiation and Liberation Outcomes in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Managing Refractory Hypoxemia in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Obese Patients with Veno-Venous Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Risk Factors for the Mortality of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Non-Centralized Setting: A Nationwide Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile limiting the tidal volume to 6 mL/kg during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) to ameliorate lung injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is widely accepted, the best setting for positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is still controversial. This study is being conducted to investigate whether a higher PEEP setting (15 cmH METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, randomised controlled trial conducted with the participation of 20 intensive care units (ICUs) at academic as well as non-academic hospitals in Japan. The subjects of the study are patients with severe ARDS who require V-V ECMO support. Eligible patients will be randomised equally to the high PEEP group or low PEEP group. Recruitment to the study will continue until a total of 210 patients with ARDS requiring V-V ECMO support have been randomised. In the high PEEP group, PEEP will be set at 15 cmH ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the trial at all the participating hospitals was obtained on 27 September 2022, by central ethics approval (IRB at Hiroshima University Hospital, C2022-0006). The results of this study will be presented at domestic and international medical congresses, and also published in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCT1062220062. Registered on 28 September 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: 28 March 2023, version 4.0.
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.